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

[Luna]

Originally posted by Mutterlein+May 5th, 2004 - 1:11 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mutterlein @ May 5th, 2004 - 1:11 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
You have your opinions.. I have mine.

de·sign

To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.

To create or execute in an artistic manner.

art

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.


A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation.

arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.

 

[Orochian]

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]
You're completely blurring things here.

Whatever bizarre and pretentious arrangment you described is an art installation utilizing a mechanical, functional device, in this case a TV. That does NOT make it a practice in industrial or product design.

 

[Orochian]

Originally posted by luna+May 5th, 2004 - 10:24 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(luna @ May 5th, 2004 - 10:24 am)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am
<!--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.

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. [/b][/quote]
Here we go again. Go back a few pages to read the discussion on architectural drawings and architecture.

Drawings are art. Period. But these are drawings that are made as part of the creative process that ultimately leads to a functional product, be it a piece of clothing or a building. They are not the main focus, nor the final product, in the craft of fashion design and architecture.

Don't blur the lines between blatantly seperate issues.

 

[Luna]

Originally posted by Orochian+May 5th, 2004 - 2:37 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Orochian @ May 5th, 2004 - 2:37 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by luna@May 5th, 2004 - 10:24 am

Originally posted by Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am
<!--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.

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.

Here we go again. Go back a few pages to read the discussion on architectural drawings and architecture.

Drawings are art. Period. But these are drawings that are made as part of the creative process that ultimately leads to a functional product, be it a piece of clothing or a building. They are not the main focus, nor the final product, in the craft of fashion design and architecture.

Don't blur the lines between blatantly seperate issues. [/b][/quote]
Like I said in my post, everyone has their own opinion.. You can't get aggravated because people do not have the same opinion as you.

There's no reason to get nasty.

As for this thread, I'm done posting. You have your opinion, some people agree with it.. I have mine... some people agree with it.

 

[tott]

Well, well...

This discussion is sort of hopeless. The line between art and design is a very blurry one, can we agree on that?

Practically anything can be art, depending on what the artist visioned, and/or how the public percieves it.

Everything is designed, in the sense that someone decided how something should look/feel/work. Maybe not in a clever, philosophical manner, but still.

 

[mikeijames]

Originally posted by Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 2:30 pm

Whatever bizarre and pretentious arrangment you described is an art installation utilizing a mechanical, functional device, in this case a TV. That does NOT make it a practice in industrial or product design.

this is exactly my point....the same friend has in one of his bathrooms three shower heads all fashioned in the shape of lion's heads...are these "art installations" or bc they do actually serve a purpose (i.e. shooting out water to clean his guests should they happen to be dirty), they are strictly design. he clearly could have gone utilitarian and made them minimalist pipes potruding from the ceiling, but he chose very intricate lions' heads...where is the line drawn for you?

 

[Orochian]

Originally posted by mikeijames+May 5th, 2004 - 6:25 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikeijames @ May 5th, 2004 - 6:25 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 2:30 pm

Whatever bizarre and pretentious arrangment you described is an art installation utilizing a mechanical, functional device, in this case a TV.  That does NOT make it a practice in industrial or product design.

this is exactly my point....the same friend has in one of his bathrooms three shower heads all fashioned in the shape of lion's heads...are these "art installations" or bc they do actually serve a purpose (i.e. shooting out water to clean his guests should they happen to be dirty), they are strictly design. he clearly could have gone utilitarian and made them minimalist pipes potruding from the ceiling, but he chose very intricate lions' heads...where is the line drawn for you? [/b][/quote]
The line, for anyone trained in design and/or architecture, should be pretty clear. The fixtures you described are a superficial, ornamental practice in scultpure with referential cues. In architectural terms, it'd be the eqivalent of someone tacking on classical external features to a standard-issue Victorian suburban house.

The shape of the lion's heads have no bearing whatsoever to the fuction of the shower heads. They're there strictly as a superficial ornament; something added on, rather than integral to the construction of the hardware. That's *not* design.

Genuine design in this case, would've been a shower head shaped and constructed to achieve an aim deemed to be desirable for such a fixture. Say, an optimal and even distribution of water. A flip through any issue of Wallpaper would provide countless ingenuous proposals to achieve this aim.

These are solutions integral to the raison d'etre of the shower head. They achieve a constructive, practical goal, rather than just sit there and look a certain way. On a purely aesthetic level, their shapes are authentic and original, produced through a conscious design process, instead of taken directly from records or surveys of classical mouldings and motifs, which is very likely the case of those lion shower heads you described.

 

[banana]

Originally posted by Orochian@Mar 25th, 2004 - 12:49 am
They sure as hell aren't. They're brilliant architects.

Well, Wright is. I'm not a fan of Gehry (who, coincidentally, is yet another overhyped Canadian export alongside the Caten twins).

Sorry but I haven't bothered to read all the posts...

Many architects argue that form precedes function so one could argue that architecture is art based on that argument.

 

[Orochian]

Originally posted by banana+May 5th, 2004 - 11:36 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(banana @ May 5th, 2004 - 11:36 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Orochian@Mar 25th, 2004 - 12:49 am
They sure as hell aren't. They're brilliant architects.

Well, Wright is. I'm not a fan of Gehry (who, coincidentally, is yet another overhyped Canadian export alongside the Caten twins).

Sorry but I haven't bothered to read all the posts...

Many architects argue that form precedes function so one could argue that architecture is art based on that argument. [/b][/quote]
May I ask who're those architects? Because I'm rather sure that through my 7+ years of formal education in architecture I've never heard of any self-respecting architect making such a claim.

Even the postmodernists, whose movement has since dropped dead with such a resounding thud, wouldn't go as far as saying form precedes function, but merely that the modernist movement has placed too much of an emphasis on stark functionalism, resulting in a cold, detached breed of architecture. Stating that form is of a higher priority than function in architecture goes against *everything* that has to do with architecture as a professional discipline.

 

[banana]

Aldo Rossi- Architecture of the city. I don't really feel like looking for my book right now but maybe tomorrow.

Also, Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie houses weren't extremely functional. His clients would often complain about the roofs leaking and his response was "move the dining room table".

 

[Orochian]

Originally posted by banana@May 6th, 2004 - 12:03 am
Aldo Rossi- Architecture of the city. I don't really feel like looking for my book right now but maybe tomorrow.

Also, Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie houses weren't extremely functional. His clients would often complain about the roofs leaking and his response was "move the dining room table".

I don't think you're interpreting Rossi's position on this quite correctly:

I happen to have the book right beside me and I found the following excerpt on page 48:

"So conceived, function, physiological in nature, can be likened to a bodily organ whose function justifies its formation and development and whose alterations of function imply an alteration of form. In this light, functionalism and organicism, the two principal currents which have pervaded modern architecture, reveal their common roots and the reason for their weakness and fundamental ambiguity. Through them form is divested of its most complex derivations: type is reduced to a simple scheme of organization, a diagram of circulation routes, and architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous value. Thus the aesthetic intentionality and necessity that characterize urban artifacts and establish their complex ties cannot be further analyzed."

It would take far too lengthy an explanation (not to mention out of topic) to translate his theoretic discourse into common English, but Rossi's views, along with those other theorists termed "rationalists" by critics, are simply an effort to resolve the seemingly dichotomous nature of form and function (something which almost all architectural academics try and try to do...). In absolutely NO WAY is he stating that form is of a higher priority than function in architecture.

As for Wright, he belonged to an entirely different era, and while he was a staunch opponent to the International Style and modernism in general, he was one of the first architects to raise the issue of the need for a structure to be of, and reconcile with, its site. That was a distinctly functional notion, and paved the way to modern architecture's concern with environmental sustainability. The incident you described simply reflects a construction defect on his houses, and his notorious aversion to any form of criticism to his work.

 

[banana]

The prairie house leaking was not result of a construction defect but of his design. The prairie house is known for having a flatter roof which allows water to collect and rot out the material causing it to leak.

Obviously everything is created with an intended use. Even monuments that have been built solely to be admired serve a purpose. Rossi critiques the classification of built forms by their functions. From my perspective having (if one compares architecture to urban planning), the rejection of classification implies that a well designed form can serve various functions without serious alteration to the structure of the building itself. But yes, this is going WAY off topic and I don't agree with Rossi's views on urban design anyway.

 

[mikeijames]

without journeying into the theoretical (bc i think everyone here can acknowledge your obvious [and ostentatious] display of architectural jargon), can you clarify your position?

you say that the issue of a shower head fashioned in the shape of a lion is an ornament, but the larger structure is design? where do aesthetics fit in for you? most interior designers i know use art quite liberally to shape the idea of a room -- not only the classic arts but use aesthetics of a situation to guide wall placement and how pipes will look and where doors should go -- instead of the simple functionality of it. the functionality limits the art much in the same way a canvas limits and artist. i've seen engineers hired and design projects take several months bc the designer has rejected the pragmatic approach and decided against things that have obvious function (removing a load bearing column for example) simply because it didn't fit into the picture they made.

leaving the scholarly (and pedantic) out of your discourse, what do you suggest inspires unique design outside of mere function?

 

[Orochian]

Originally posted by mikeijames@May 6th, 2004 - 6:57 am
without journeying into the theoretical (bc i think everyone here can acknowledge your obvious [and ostentatious] display of architectural jargon), can you clarify your position?

you say that the issue of a shower head fashioned in the shape of a lion is an ornament, but the larger structure is design? where do aesthetics fit in for you? most interior designers i know use art quite liberally to shape the idea of a room -- not only the classic arts but use aesthetics of a situation to guide wall placement and how pipes will look and where doors should go -- instead of the simple functionality of it. the functionality limits the art much in the same way a canvas limits and artist. i've seen engineers hired and design projects take several months bc the designer has rejected the pragmatic approach and decided against things that have obvious function (removing a load bearing column for example) simply because it didn't fit into the picture they made.

leaving the scholarly (and pedantic) out of your discourse, what do you suggest inspires unique design outside of mere function?

You're a funny guy. You asked for me to draw a line in a theoretical issue as a trained and practicing architect, and you actually expected me not to draw from my training in my explanation?

What I said wasn't even strictly architectural design terms - anyone familiar with art and architectural history would be able to comprehend them.

But clearly you're not getting the key difference between an ornament, a superficial form of sculptural practice with cues and shapes taken referentially, such as a lion shower head (or a French dormer window, or a Corinthian column), and the result of conscious, original design, with forms derived specifically from the subject's role and function.

To put it in even more simplistic terms, a lion head does not affect the hardware's function - it may actually very well hinder it. A "designed' shower head would possess a form integral to its function - a larger base would result in a wider distribution of water streams, a thicker depth might yield a higher water pressure.

You can't be more wrong in stating that function "limits" the potential for fruitful, constructive design. On the contrarty, it fuels it. The yearning for better functioning archifacts, and our ever changing needs, are the sole reason why the discipline of design exists in the first place.

 

[Orochian]

Originally posted by banana@May 6th, 2004 - 1:01 am
The prairie house leaking was not result of a construction defect but of his design. The prairie house is known for having a flatter roof which allows water to collect and rot out the material causing it to leak.

Obviously everything is created with an intended use. Even monuments that have been built solely to be admired serve a purpose. Rossi critiques the classification of built forms by their functions. From my perspective having (if one compares architecture to urban planning), the rejection of classification implies that a well designed form can serve various functions without serious alteration to the structure of the building itself. But yes, this is going WAY off topic and I don't agree with Rossi's views on urban design anyway.

Flat roofed structures have existed ever since the dawn of the modern age. What we call a "flat roof" is actually invariably very gently sloped to faciliate the drainage of water. A leakage problem in a flat roofed house is much more likely a problem on behalf of the drainage system, and not that of the design of the house itself. A "flatter" roof does not inherently result in such problems - because if so the International Style would've been known as a leaking nightmare from hell, not the design icon (for better or for worse) it has become.

 

[clay]

I believe that certain frms of fashion such as couture, embriodery work, even hand tailoring can be considered fine art. The fact that these things are done by hand are one thing but the outcome can be simply amazing. Yes there is a huge degree of skill needed and the end result has to be functional to some degree, but i say these things can be works of art. Manipulating fabric, surface design, draping, pattern making- some people can do these things and others are pure genius at it. I am fashion designer and I have seen things that i could never in a million years do. Just take a look at couture from the last century and if you do not see art anywhere you must be blind.

 

[mikeijames]

Originally posted by Orochian@May 6th, 2004 - 2:26 pm
You're a funny guy. You asked for me to draw a line in a theoretical issue as a trained and practicing architect, and you actually expected me not to draw from my training in my explanation?

But clearly you're not getting the key difference between an ornament, a superficial form of sculptural practice with cues and shapes taken referentially, such as a lion shower head (or a French dormer window, or a Corinthian column), and the result of conscious, original design, with forms derived specifically from the subject's role and function.

quite the contrary, i think that your training and practice as an architect has limited your view on the artfulness of many different aspects of life ....my point is that when objects (including garments) are designed not for their function but purely for their artfulness and aesthetic and happen to have a function (a verdura gold bracelet that has a watch charm...a watch which happens to actually function as a real time piece)...they do fall under the umbrella of art. we're not talking about embellishing something functional with ornamentation or adorning it with other objets d'art; we're talking about things thought up for no other reason than their appearance and then trying to bring those into the real world.

 

[maverick]

What is art?

Again, answer however you like...

 

[PradaBoy]

Its a way to express yourself. To tell things you cant in other aspects of life.

 

[kween]

It is a way of expressing your deep and inner feelings and emotions. Many people do this throuhg different kind of art. Andy Warhol turned to painting, Christina Aguilera does it through her music. Poetry, sculpture, writing, design, fashion, etc. are all examples of art.