art & fashion design ... how, when and where do they meet?...
- Thread starter Orochian
- Start date
DiePoodleDie
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh my. What a subject! Pardon me for not reading every single post, but I have to reply. Can't hold myself.
Imo, in order to ask the question "Is fashion art?", you must first ask "What is art?".
To try and find an answer to that question is not very easy.
For an example: Marcel Duchamp, 1914. He displayed a bottle-holder that was used to dry bottles on and said: This is art. In the very same exhibition he also had a urinal that was placed upside down. Is this art? Well, of course, Marcel Duchamp is an artist! And what an artist takes and displays as art, must surely be art.
So.. can a jacket be art? Or is a urinal somehow more "arty" than a jacket?
Anyone?
When discussing art, you must be aware of that art has two values; utility value and symbolic value. Mr. Duchamp and his urinal is preferably placed in the "symbolic value-slot". Fashion should, with this theory, have an utility value and therefore be considered art.
As Arthur C. Danto says in his essay "The Artworld" from 1964. Art is what is accepted as such in an artworld.
--- Ugh. Someone, make me stop. Hit me hard..
Imo, in order to ask the question "Is fashion art?", you must first ask "What is art?".
To try and find an answer to that question is not very easy.
For an example: Marcel Duchamp, 1914. He displayed a bottle-holder that was used to dry bottles on and said: This is art. In the very same exhibition he also had a urinal that was placed upside down. Is this art? Well, of course, Marcel Duchamp is an artist! And what an artist takes and displays as art, must surely be art.
So.. can a jacket be art? Or is a urinal somehow more "arty" than a jacket?
Anyone?
When discussing art, you must be aware of that art has two values; utility value and symbolic value. Mr. Duchamp and his urinal is preferably placed in the "symbolic value-slot". Fashion should, with this theory, have an utility value and therefore be considered art.
As Arthur C. Danto says in his essay "The Artworld" from 1964. Art is what is accepted as such in an artworld.
--- Ugh. Someone, make me stop. Hit me hard..
Captaine Kit
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
Will we get out of this post alive?
I find it awesome when people take a candid moment out of their scheduled lives to say something simple and soft-edged so that everyone's happy and can move on, and believe in it. However, if this statement is trying to be both simple and elegant, the phrase fails Ocham's Razor in the elegance of direct statement, direct interpretation. If you've answered the question of what is art, then:.
I. What is considered true?
II. Devine 'the eye'. Is it physical? Is it real? Is it the sum of one's cultural experiences or somatic stimuli?
Yes, it is a funny smartass thing to say, so I'm not about to jump on you for saying it. I think that it doesn't suffice any description of art but rather the way people give the name, or quality, 'art' to any form of expression. For example, I take my experiences as 'art'. Not that it has been put into a format that can be packed into an exhibit, but the art lies in the possibility that my experiences will be turned into a great story. Leaving that right there, I'll get back to the topic of 'Is fashion an art?'
Well, there's a reason why we call it fashion design. I think we can agree, Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination. (Wikipedia article: Art) And Engineering is the application of pure science to practical problems. (also Wiki) Any type of design is neither art nor engineered, and yet it is both. The concept of design reflects the designer's imagination of things that don't exist--one's expression--and the practice of design addresses problems in a technical manner or addresses the needs of any number of people. Individuals with the task of fashion, grafic, theatrical, sound, interior, industrial design, etc. must be able to conceptualize and practice.
'Art' and 'design' were googled with the term 'define' preceding them, and I deemed that their simplest and most elegant representions could be found on Wikipedia.org. Anyway, I'm down with discussion. I would be happy to learn from you and come to refine our ideas of fashion or anything together.
Chelsea3c said:True art is in the eye of the beholder
I find it awesome when people take a candid moment out of their scheduled lives to say something simple and soft-edged so that everyone's happy and can move on, and believe in it. However, if this statement is trying to be both simple and elegant, the phrase fails Ocham's Razor in the elegance of direct statement, direct interpretation. If you've answered the question of what is art, then:.
I. What is considered true?
II. Devine 'the eye'. Is it physical? Is it real? Is it the sum of one's cultural experiences or somatic stimuli?
Yes, it is a funny smartass thing to say, so I'm not about to jump on you for saying it. I think that it doesn't suffice any description of art but rather the way people give the name, or quality, 'art' to any form of expression. For example, I take my experiences as 'art'. Not that it has been put into a format that can be packed into an exhibit, but the art lies in the possibility that my experiences will be turned into a great story. Leaving that right there, I'll get back to the topic of 'Is fashion an art?'
Well, there's a reason why we call it fashion design. I think we can agree, Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination. (Wikipedia article: Art) And Engineering is the application of pure science to practical problems. (also Wiki) Any type of design is neither art nor engineered, and yet it is both. The concept of design reflects the designer's imagination of things that don't exist--one's expression--and the practice of design addresses problems in a technical manner or addresses the needs of any number of people. Individuals with the task of fashion, grafic, theatrical, sound, interior, industrial design, etc. must be able to conceptualize and practice.
'Art' and 'design' were googled with the term 'define' preceding them, and I deemed that their simplest and most elegant representions could be found on Wikipedia.org. Anyway, I'm down with discussion. I would be happy to learn from you and come to refine our ideas of fashion or anything together.
MulletProof
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 28,523
- Reaction score
- 6,670
Multitudes
Of a bastard line.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 9,296
- Reaction score
- 2
... 
I have been following the art/fashion discussion in the Gareth Pugh thread, and I must admit, my hands has been tickling, dying to jump into that discussion, but I controlled myself
...
So this is where the battle should stand! ...
I will be back! ...
I have been following the art/fashion discussion in the Gareth Pugh thread, and I must admit, my hands has been tickling, dying to jump into that discussion, but I controlled myself
...So this is where the battle should stand!
...I will be back!
...Multitudes said:...
I have been following the art/fashion discussion in the Gareth Pugh thread, and I must admit, my hands has been tickling, dying to jump into that discussion, but I controlled myself
So this is where the battle should stand!
I will be back!
Hi Multi,
I personally think that isn't art , as Darth Vader isn't fashion ..... ( prior at this moment, things may change AW07), as it stands - I may consider it costume design, as it functions as exagerated artistic expression in order to achieve an theatrical/gimmick effect.
In other words if George Lucas , somehow decided to show the garments used in his films in a fashion week, it would be considered the same.
what you think?
Last edited by a moderator:
JuiceMajor
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 4,509
- Reaction score
- 1
Interesting comments.
all I know is that the discussion is endless....will we ever reach a compromise...an agreement of sorts? Or how about this....no stereotyping,limitations,generalisations or explicit definitions at all? How about just creating things out of pure beauty and poetry?? How about no art or no fashion tags at all? We already have this kind of guerilla approach...the anti-fashion;ones who dare not be labelled as "fashion" or whatever. I love this so much better.
But I certainly don't appreciate the pretence that follows such ideals of art. One can still remain creative and extraordinary and still be thoughtful and down-to-earth.
But I certainly don't appreciate the pretence that follows such ideals of art. One can still remain creative and extraordinary and still be thoughtful and down-to-earth.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 7575
Guest
We have objective definitions for various forms of art, painting is 2-dimensional, glasswork is well...made with glass. We accept these qualities as restrictors on what it can and cannot be. Like these mediums in art, fashion has it's own objective definitions.
The first is that it inherently changes with moods, trends, etc. It's temporal and reflects the tastes of the moment. That in itself seperates it from art.
The other glaring quality is its money making expectations. Clothes aren't made for show only, they must be worn and ultimately bought. If it's not made to be worn (realistically) it isn't fashion.
Art cannot be fashion in and of itself (although many designers have turned art works into prints and design elements) and fashion can never assume the role of an artwork. Many designers have made showpieces that exist by themselves as art but it is always in the context of a larger supporting collection of actual marketable and practical clothes.
The first is that it inherently changes with moods, trends, etc. It's temporal and reflects the tastes of the moment. That in itself seperates it from art.
The other glaring quality is its money making expectations. Clothes aren't made for show only, they must be worn and ultimately bought. If it's not made to be worn (realistically) it isn't fashion.
Art cannot be fashion in and of itself (although many designers have turned art works into prints and design elements) and fashion can never assume the role of an artwork. Many designers have made showpieces that exist by themselves as art but it is always in the context of a larger supporting collection of actual marketable and practical clothes.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 7575
Guest
Clothes that are meant to be worn?!! Well I never!
Multitudes
Of a bastard line.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 9,296
- Reaction score
- 2
esquire said:
Hi esquire,
It's a pleasure to meet you.
Now there is certainly an aspect, I will admit, in Pugh, which is fascinating, but that's it. For me what it merely boils down to is a fascination, and that doesn't communicate much, not to say that leads the spectator to a standstill, which makes him not very significant yet in this context. This my own subjective view on Pugh's design and again cannot be used as and argument wether what he produce is a work of art!
To call him a costume designer, is , for me, not an argument we can use, for taking away the possibilities of his design to become a work of art, because some might argue that the costume designer, what he/she produces, ex in film/theatre/dance, is also a work of art.
I think in this context, we might need to get closer to what is a work of art, before we can label anyone an artist.
Art is artificial, just as artificial as technological production, and it draws on the most sophisticated technological innovations. For machanical assembly and aesthetic composition can be distinguised according to wether they are governed by external or internal dynamisms. Technology is produced in order to serve extrinsic purposes, while the plane of composition proper to art, by contrast, is a plane of immanence; it's capable of absorbing the technical plane. For where the product of tecnical machines are decided in advance, the product of the work of art is a psychic effect on the viewer that cannot be predicted in advance. Art has it's own economics: it can create new values and finalities for human relations and productive activities. In art matter becomes expressive instead of purely functional(that is not to say that art can be functional! Functionality is another argument I don't think we can use in this context!), short-circuiting the division between production and consumption, that's where art is distinguished by it's different relation to matter from technologies etc.
At first, if we look at what is particular to fashion, it might seem like, it finds itself both in the aesthetic plane and the mechanical assembly?!!!!
Of course this is not an answer at all, we have to tweak out more deatails but I just want to let this hang for a moment!
Another question, which is forcing upon us in this context, is the political valence of culture and art that leads us to a familiar problem: is it possible, or even advisable, to distinguish between 'true art' and fashion? Would such a distinction coincide with one between 'high culture and 'popular culture'? Or is it possible, on the contrary, for fashion and popular culture to overlap the immanent plane of aesthetics composition?
Last edited by a moderator:
rangerrick14
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 1
Multitudes said:
Intersting and I agree; today it is increasingly hard to distinguish all these things. But at the same time for thousands of years people have tried to define art and no one has come up with an answer yet so maybe there is no definite answer to what art is, maybe we must make our own personal defintions. I believe art is just this cutural construct that we have created to explain the mysteries of our inner universe to question and answer ourselves. IF that is true alot of fashion is not art but some art is fashion. Because Cristobal balenciaga was questioning and answering him self everytime he created a garment.
Great posts Multi and rangerrick!
Multi, to begin to answer your question:
As abstract categories, I believe that Art and fashion can be distinguished, on the very basis that you provide in your post. As a category, Art has long been defined (at least in the "West") by its lack of function. A work of art is traditionally understood as being autonomous from a user (or wearer, in this case). This is not its only qualification, but I would assert that it is a basic one.
However, abstract definitions (like the one above) are continually called into question by objects that confound them. Art is an artificial category of classification, a category that many objects in the world escape and defy. Pugh's work is just such an object--valuable, at least in part, because it calls our existing categories of thought into question. There also objects that undo these categories all together, and these are the ones that generally "work for me," whether as fashion, art, architecture, etc.
Sooooo, to close my ramble: I think labels like "art" and fashion" are rather useless when it comes to philosophizing. But however much we may desire their dissolution, these categories remain potent, and possibly necessary for communication.
Multi, to begin to answer your question:
As abstract categories, I believe that Art and fashion can be distinguished, on the very basis that you provide in your post. As a category, Art has long been defined (at least in the "West") by its lack of function. A work of art is traditionally understood as being autonomous from a user (or wearer, in this case). This is not its only qualification, but I would assert that it is a basic one.
However, abstract definitions (like the one above) are continually called into question by objects that confound them. Art is an artificial category of classification, a category that many objects in the world escape and defy. Pugh's work is just such an object--valuable, at least in part, because it calls our existing categories of thought into question. There also objects that undo these categories all together, and these are the ones that generally "work for me," whether as fashion, art, architecture, etc.
Sooooo, to close my ramble: I think labels like "art" and fashion" are rather useless when it comes to philosophizing. But however much we may desire their dissolution, these categories remain potent, and possibly necessary for communication.
Lena said:of course they do, but they absolutely dont think about $$ or about how much a painting (etc) will sell for while they are in creative mode.
they start thinking about this 'after' not 'during'
..it makes quite some difference imHo
It cannot be applied as a general rule, as Jeff Koons, Tracy Emin, Jessica Craig-Martin, Damien Hirst, Andreas Gursky, Sylvie Fleury, John Currin... as example certainly think in $$$ when they put their hands to work....
its quite romantic think in the other way... but most of the times, with contemporary leading artist it isn't real.
