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

[mikeijames]

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.

 

[purplelucrezia]

I agree, mikeijames. Thanks for putting it so very eloquently.
(Just to go with the literary example, Dickens was apparently paid by the word. And yet he is still regarded today as one of the greatest authors. Perhaps one day some of the genuises of the design world will be seen in the same light.)

 

[Orochian]

In case anyone is interested, there's an article in the lastest Wallpaper* magazine with a direct quote by Hans Wegner, one of THE most influential furniture designers of the modernist era, which should settle this issue of art vs. design quite clearly, once and for all. I wouldn't risk diluting the strength and purity of his analysis with my own summary/interpretation of his words, so I urge all of you who're interested to read it at your local newstands.

The distinction between the two really should be blatantly obvious for anyone trained and/or working in the various fields of design. Without going through the very same points I have already raised earlier in this thread, let me just say there seems to a lot of promiscuous and inappropriate romanticizing of the term "art" these days, to the point that it's become simply a cliched compliment for anything with profound depth and meaning.

A designer who regards him/herself strictly as an artist will likely never accomplish much in a designing career. Some of the sentiments in this thread remind me of a few colleagues from my undergraduate days who'd nonchalantly dismiss our professors' constructive criticism regarding their architectural projects as "my work's art and you're not getting it". Well, no one can objectively evaluate a piece of art work as it is free to be interpreted in an infinite array of ways; one can, however, objectively point out that a space with a 4-foot tall ceiling and crooked walls is crap, no matter how "artistic" its designer deems it to be. Fortunately these people aren't likely to graduate with a professional degree, much less ascend the ranks to become practising architects, so our world is safely free from their so called visions of "artistic" architecture.

Again, design is NOT art. And Hans Wegner (as well as arguably every single accomplished designer in history) agrees.

 

[faust]

So, I thought about this, and here is my analysis. Applied art and abstract art are unified by a single concept, called Quality (I am borrowing the term from Robert Pirsig). This concept underlies that SOMETHING that moves the creator to create and you to see the creation as something that moves you or something that makes you gag. The only difference between the applied and abstract art is the final product - in the former it is something that has a utilitarian value (clothes for cover and protection, architecture for shelter), in the latter it does not (paintings, statutes, poetry, etc.). Therefore, I do not see the difference in the inspiration of a painter being any higher than that of a fashion designer. Their skills may not be of equal value, but with the onslaught of the "modern" art resembling children's drawings we can question even that. Quality is omnipresent in life, it transcends branches of it (including art, which is a branch of life), unifing them. You see it everywhere - Orochian, you can see that the crooked walls of your co-students are not Quality, just like you can see that the blandness of Marc Jacobs (for the sake of an argument) is not Quality either, right? So, maybe while the abstract artist is not constrained by the laws of physics, unlike the architects, he is still a subject to Quality.

What do you guys think?

 

[tott]

I've been enjoying reading this thread as it's evolved...

Quality is also subjective, I'd say.

To me, quality lies in the execution: is it functional, is it well-made? That's quality to me. Whether I think it looks good or not doesn't have any impact on the quality itself.

If you bring aesthetics into the quality concept, you're heading down a very slippery slope.

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by Orochian@Apr 6th, 2004 - 8:01 pm
The distinction between the two really should be blatantly obvious for anyone trained and/or working in the various fields of design.

A designer who regards him/herself strictly as an artist will likely never accomplish much in a designing career.

i know exactly what you mean oro and i quite agree.
remaining in seeing design (in general) as applied art and i find it more interestign than the total abstractisms of the mainstream of today's contemporary art.

i always end up arguing with me 'artist' friends for their lack of craftmanship,
and creaftmanship is very important for the 'applied art of design'
design is not abstract it's a three dimentional reality, ready to use and live with (in)

art is going quite a same-boring way and is certainly not taking design there.

concept underlies that SOMETHING that moves the creator to create and you to see the creation as something that moves you or something that makes you gag.

i wish it really worked this way, but sad to say, this is not the case both with todays artists and -in a lesser scale- with fashion designers.

there are very few artsits/designers trully proud of their work and browsing the collections one can easily say... there are few 'creations' worth feeling proud about, mostly is a safe 'expression' on a uninteresting and much promoted give theme, without even sparks or surprise..

The only difference between the applied and abstract art is the final product - in the former it is something that has a utilitarian value (clothes for cover and protection, architecture for shelter), in the latter it does not (paintings, statutes, poetry, etc.).

it is not the 'only' but its sure is the most fundamental difference between 'applied' and 'fine' art.
As a designer, i can assure you it does a hell of a difference, it simply puts the 'artist' in a completly different -and for me quite more challenging- frame of 'artistic' mood.

design does not lose its 'glamour' or worth when not being considered as art..
for me, it's quite the opposite. i somehow respect design more than 'fine' arts and i'm only talking in a contemporary (1950+) frame.

i love the ''restrictions' of design, they can be very challenging and unsually erhh inspiring

 

[tott]

Originally posted by Lena@Apr 6th, 2004 - 9:04 pm
i always end up arguing with me 'artist' friends for their lack of craftmanship,
and creaftmanship is very important for the 'applied art of design'
design is not abstract it's a three dimentional reality, ready to use and live with (in)

This is so true. I happen to think it's key whether it's fine arts or applied arts. Without knowing the craftsmanship, you can't really choose when to apply it or ignore it.

 

[faust]

Originally posted by tott@Apr 6th, 2004 - 2:51 pm
I've been enjoying reading this thread as it's evolved...

Quality is also subjective, I'd say.

To me, quality lies in the execution: is it functional, is it well-made? That's quality to me. Whether I think it looks good or not doesn't have any impact on the quality itself.

If you bring aesthetics into the quality concept, you're heading down a very slippery slope.

I don't think Quality is subjective. Why are some works generally regarded as pinnacles of art, and others are regarded as nothing? There is that SOMETHING that makes them what they are, and people don't have to define it to know it. Esthetics is just a feeble attempt to describe Quality....

 

[Orochian]

Originally posted by Lena@Apr 6th, 2004 - 3:04 pm
design does not lose its 'glamour' or worth when not being considered as art..
for me, it's quite the opposite. i somehow respect design more than 'fine' arts and i'm only talking in a contemporary (1950+) frame.

i love the ''restrictions' of design, they can be very challenging and unsually erhh inspiring

EXACTLY. I think some people took my initial statement of "design is not art" as somehow a deragatory reference to design, which is wholly illogical since, as an architect, I"m a designer myself.

That's also what I mean by the grossly generalized romanticizing of the term "art". Saying something isn't art isn't necessarily a put down - in the case of design, I'd even argue that it involves a much more rigorous and calculated creative process as it addresses the functional needs of everyday living, and, in that sense, is an even more noble pursuit than any type of non-functional art form.

And yes, Lena, restrictions and limitations are essential components of design. Anyone can create a perfectly habitable space when given an infinite construction budget, and an inexhaustable amount of real estate - two things that simply don't exist. What makes architecture truly great is to ingenuously devise a solution to address the need for shelter under certain confines.

 

[mikeijames]

this thread is truly enthralling. orochian, i agree with your evidence but not your analysis. the structural limitations of any specific applied art does not detract from its being art (whether that's a good or bad thing). in fact, art's goal in previous epochs was to achieve a perfect form (from the perfect arch to the perfect verse). the sonnet, for example, was once considered one of the only measures of true poetic verse. though one was limited to a strict rhythm, rhyme scheme, and lineation, the end product was nothing if not an art product.

i completely understand your objection as an architect. there are real life constraints that prevent total artful expression, but these restraints don't snuff out all artful expression, in fact, i argue, they heighten it. no poet writes three million lines of verse, no designer creates a dress that has miles of fabric behind it, no painter creates a canvas that spans thousands of acres, no sculptor attempts to create a statue that reaches miles into the air: in all art, there's a tension set up between the bounty of one's idea and the realistic constraints placed on it by its form. it's in that tension that i think art begins. finding away to synthesize those ideas into something realistic.

art at its most absurd must still exist in a marketplace and any marketplace is bound by the opinions (and more importantly, the quid) of those who participate in that market. a room with four foot high ceiling, while a unique idea, would find no place in the marketplace. a richard meier building, however, no matter how antithetical to neightborhood aesthetics it may be, does have its niche.

 

[purplelucrezia]

I found this very interesting considering the context of the discussion here.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/foto_...33.html?#cutid1
A fashion shoot styled to resemble famous paintings. Also, the lastest US Vogue uses the same idea in their editorial as well. Any thoughts?

 

[Luna]

Originally posted by Mutterlein@Mar 25th, 2004 - 3:15 pm
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.

I disagree. Though you have good points, I feel that art is found in everything. From a relief on the side of a building, to the textile design of a woman's skirt.

If Art is a form of expression, then designers express what they want through their collections.

I've two degrees from FIT... one in fine arts and one in accessories design... I've been to both spectrums of FIT (except the horrid FMM program )..

Designers are artists... artists are designers... they are both creating something from their own mind trying to present a message towards others.

just my 2 cents.

 

[Luna]

hehe.. i was just saying this to wyatt.

Function in clothing(not fashion) is a jumpsuit that a janitor wears to mop the floor, function is a speedo for a swimmer...

FASHION is artistically designed clothes.

PS.. there's a "fashion art" class at my school... i know it exists.. I took it, and loved it.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Originally posted by luna+May 4th, 2004 - 11:24 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(luna @ May 4th, 2004 - 11:24 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mutterlein@Mar 25th, 2004 - 3:15 pm
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.

I disagree. Though you have good points, I feel that art is found in everything. From a relief on the side of a building, to the textile design of a woman's skirt.

If Art is a form of expression, then designers express what they want through their collections.

I've two degrees from FIT... one in fine arts and one in accessories design... I've been to both spectrums of FIT (except the horrid FMM program )..

Designers are artists... artists are designers... they are both creating something from their own mind trying to present a message towards others.

just my 2 cents. [/b][/quote]
I agree with you to a certain extent. However most fine artists are not fufllling a purposeful and functional need when they create artwork. And I really do fail to see the artisitic merit in a parking sign or electonic equipment instructions.

 

[Orochian]

Originally posted by luna@May 4th, 2004 - 11:45 pm
hehe.. i was just saying this to wyatt.

Function in clothing(not fashion) is a jumpsuit that a janitor wears to mop the floor, function is a speedo for a swimmer...

FASHION is artistically designed clothes.

PS.. there's a "fashion art" class at my school... i know it exists.. I took it, and loved it.

So you're saying function isn't even a component in fashion design? I cannot disagree more. I'm sure designers like Helmut Lang, Neil Barrett, and Jil Sander would also have something to say against that.

The very fact that it's called fashion *design*, and not fashion "art", indicates a functional element in the craft of fashion. Your school, for whatever erroneous or unfortunate reason, chose to call it the latter, but there's still no denying that it's known to the majority of people as "fashion design".

As I've said about 97 times, the need for function is, among many other things, what seperates design from art.

To say that art is found in everything, while romantic, isn't very constructive. Again, grossly generalizing the term "art" is simply going to make it even more of a cliche, and detracts meaning from what is genuinely artful.

 

[mikeijames]

Originally posted by Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am
As I've said about 97 times, the need for function is, among many other things, what seperates design from art.

there's a friend of mine who has one of those plasma tv's mounted in a frame and he has monet's water lilies displayed in it...the lillies (and clouds and water) slightly move throughout the day and stuff but it serves no other purpose than to sit in his foyer in a frame and play that video over and over....the television CLEARLY has to serve a purpose, a function as you like to quote, but i cannot rightfully call that concept strictly design...in my mind, that idea is nothing if not artful (and yes, clearly ostentatious, but that aside)

 

[faust]

Originally posted by mikeijames+May 5th, 2004 - 8:01 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikeijames @ May 5th, 2004 - 8:01 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am
As I've said about 97 times, the need for function is, among many other things, what seperates design from art.

there's a friend of mine who has one of those plasma tv's mounted in a frame and he has monet's water lilies displayed in it...the lillies (and clouds and water) slightly move throughout the day and stuff but it serves no other purpose than to sit in his foyer in a frame and play that video over and over....the television CLEARLY has to serve a purpose, a function as you like to quote, but i cannot rightfully call that concept strictly design...in my mind, that idea is nothing if not artful (and yes, clearly ostentatious, but that aside) [/b][/quote]
Funny.

I would like to separte the distinction further. I think that both design and art serve functions. However, design's primary function (but not the only one) is utilitarian, while art's primary function (but not the only one) is emotional. Clearly, if art had no function, it would have no place is society (I hope I am not just tangling up in definitions here). Anyway, there is something that underlies both. I recommend everyone reading "Zen and the Art of Motrocycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig - he outlines the division between form and function and than unites the two perfectly.

 

[Luna]

Originally posted by Mutterlein+May 5th, 2004 - 1:20 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mutterlein @ May 5th, 2004 - 1:20 am)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by luna@May 4th, 2004 - 11:24 pm
<!--QuoteBegin-Mutterlein

@Mar 25th, 2004 - 3:15 pm
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.

I disagree. Though you have good points, I feel that art is found in everything. From a relief on the side of a building, to the textile design of a woman's skirt.

If Art is a form of expression, then designers express what they want through their collections.

I've two degrees from FIT... one in fine arts and one in accessories design... I've been to both spectrums of FIT (except the horrid FMM program )..

Designers are artists... artists are designers... they are both creating something from their own mind trying to present a message towards others.

just my 2 cents.

I agree with you to a certain extent. However most fine artists are not fufllling a purposeful and functional need when they create artwork. And I really do fail to see the artisitic merit in a parking sign or electonic equipment instructions. [/b][/quote]
Someone had to come up with the right color, picture and shape for that parking sign. And artists try to make people think through their work.. It's not like you go to a gallery, look at some sculpture and walk away with nothing... Either you liked it, or you loved it.. or it touched you in some way... I think that's purpose enough.

 

[Luna]

Originally posted by Orochian+May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Orochian @ May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-luna@May 4th, 2004 - 11:45 pm
hehe.. i was just saying this to wyatt.

Function in clothing(not fashion) is a jumpsuit that a janitor wears to mop the floor, function is a speedo for a swimmer...

FASHION is artistically designed clothes.

PS.. there's a "fashion art" class at my school... i know it exists.. I took it, and loved it.

So you're saying function isn't even a component in fashion design? I cannot disagree more. I'm sure designers like Helmut Lang, Neil Barrett, and Jil Sander would also have something to say against that.

The very fact that it's called fashion *design*, and not fashion "art", indicates a functional element in the craft of fashion. Your school, for whatever erroneous or unfortunate reason, chose to call it the latter, but there's still no denying that it's known to the majority of people as "fashion design".

As I've said about 97 times, the need for function is, among many other things, what seperates design from art.

To say that art is found in everything, while romantic, isn't very constructive. Again, grossly generalizing the term "art" is simply going to make it even more of a cliche, and detracts meaning from what is genuinely artful. [/b][/quote]
Soooo... When I see tons of gorgeous fashion drawings.. they aren't art? Both the drawings and the final product are very much art.. just a different medium from clay, paint, charcoal, or pencil.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Originally posted by luna@May 5th, 2004 - 10:21 am

Someone had to come up with the right color, picture and shape for that parking sign. And artists try to make people think through their work.. It's not like you go to a gallery, look at some sculpture and walk away with nothing... Either you liked it, or you loved it.. or it touched you in some way... I think that's purpose enough.

Just because something is visual and creatvie does not make it art. A parking sign is not art. And just because something takes thought does not make it design. A chrome inflatable rabbit by jeff koons is not design.