Grrrr, I just had a huge long message and accidently pressed back. Perhaps its for the best, I'm sure it will be much more succint now!
Although I'm not a fan, I think we ought to give Pugh and designers like him more credit. I do agree that designers
must take into account their audiences, but I feel it is relevant that these audiences can be hugely different. I'm sure Pugh's collection wasn't made up for sale in the quantity that Mcqueen's was, or even as much as more 'arty' designers such as Comme de Garcon, or new designers such as Sinha-stanic. I'm sure he knows that this collection won't generate profit by selling the pieces as day or even evening wear, such conventional ways of making profit just don't work for padded leotards with arm bands. What Pugh is selling is Pugh; the clothes can be put into editorials, the collection creates a sensation, his name gets put on a t-shirt etc..., all of which bulk up his name and grant him publicity. It is then he gets signed up for things like HSBC and it is then he makes profit. But again, its more publicity and so the circle continues...
I think it is also very early in Pugh's career to bring him into such a discussion, I think his progression is already evident. His first collection was even more gimmicky than this. Perhaps his designs will become as genius as those of such designers as Yohji or Rei. I say genius because, personally, my favourite type of fashion is that which is as thought-provoking and emotional as art should be, but also has function. Margiela's latest couture line is a perfect example, not only were they beautiful, thoughful clothes, but they were adressing a problem in society.
Which leads to my next point. I think we're being to specific and that the real question is art vs design. The main consensus I'm getting from these last couple of pages is that the main difference is that one functions and/or makes profit and the other doesn't. So, if you have a stain on the wall and you hang something so definately classified as art as a Monet painting over it to hide it thus giving it a practical function, does Monet therefore become a designer and his work not art? Of course not, because it wasn't Monet's intention that his work should be used to cover a stain. His work was meant to capture an emotion, but if it can do both the job of art and the job of design, it's doubly satisfying. Why can't something be art
and design? Look at art deco.
Finally, and my tuppence (or two pence) will be done, the reason I am not a fan of Pugh is because this amount of thought is not evident in his work. I think art can be absolutely anything, but that what classifies it as art is a thought or emotion captured, leading to an evocation of that emotion or a provoking of the thought when it is showed. For me, the difference between good and bad art is how fresh the thought or relatable the emotion - for Marcel Duchamp to call an urinal art was fantastic in 1914, but when you think about how long that was and how some art students are still doing similar things, is when you realise how staid it is to call an urinal art if the artist had shown a new urinal today. This is why I don't like Pugh, although you could argue his work was
not staid for provoking such discussions as this, I feel that these discussions are not new and all of those other designers who provoked them before were clever enough to have some other substance to their work (usually wearable clothing, profit or innovation) and/or have developed into fantastic designers, something I still hope for Pugh to do.
Jesus, that was a bit long (and even less succint). I'm off to hide...
