PrinceOfCats
Naturellement pulpeuse
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 10,124
- Reaction score
- 2
Don't we already have one?
Me too. If you don't think fashion is art, than why don't you just go to Banna Republic? They have plenty of decently attractive, un awe-inspiring pieces that I am sure you would love Orochian. [/b][/quote]Originally posted by MJCouture+Apr 22nd, 2004 - 9:04 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MJCouture @ Apr 22nd, 2004 - 9:04 am)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by purplelucrezia@Apr 22nd, 2004 - 12:26 am
<!--QuoteBegin-Orochian@Apr 22nd, 2004 - 12:24 am
Fashion isn't art. Clothes are created to be worn. They have to faciliate our daily life while we're wearing them. Creating clothes that no one would wear just for theatrics on the runway is pointless and futile. Period.
How very glad I am that you're not in charge of the runways...![]()
Criticism is constructive as long as there are rational supporting arguments, which don't seem to be in abundance in your posts.Originally posted by MJCouture@Apr 22nd, 2004 - 10:00 am
but I would never critisize a designer just because my tastes were different than what they put down the runway. Now I am sick of this thread.
As I said, that's nothing but self-serving romantic pretense to make up for a lack of true design skills.Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Apr 22nd, 2004 - 3:34 pm
Yohji Yamamoto indirectly says that he believes fashion to be art in an interview with iD magazine...he might not be any good at making clothes but I imagine he's fairly well informed on the subject of fashion...
But my impression of his work has no relation to my comment - my statement is strictly targeted at the blatantly wrong belief that "fashion is art".
I was recently reading a small bio on Rei and CdG and one her quotes really stuck for me. She said, and I paraphrase, "For something to be beautiful it doesn't have to pretty". In my head I keep saying it over and over again -- I totally see what she's saying. People often apply the term "avant-garde" to something that is weird or out of the norm, and it is, but they don't say it with the same authentic take that others give it. I enjoy looking at fashion and articles of clothing as if they were works of art. So people who view something as unwearable really don't "get" what these vangaurd designers are trying and succeeding to achieve, imo. To each their own.
I'm sorry, but I find that a bit patronizing somehow...Originally posted by ignitioned32@Apr 23rd, 2004 - 7:01 am
I think basically people do not understand Rei Kawakubo.![]()
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think with architecture, fashion, industrial design, etc should serve a functional need and purpose. However I think it completely possible to make a building, a garment, or even a chair to do more than just serve a function. I think this is where artistry and expression comes in. I think this is where design can contain art yet not exactly become art. The different elements of how art and design respond and influence people, culture, and society are blurred. While a building by Corbusier or a teapot by Michael Graves serve a function, there is an element of it's design that expresses an ideal, a thought, an element that causes the user to respond on a different level. To me that is art.Originally posted by Orochian@Apr 22nd, 2004 - 3:52 pm
I do not "dislike" him; but I'm don't find his work particularly impressive either.
But my impression of his work has no relation to my comment - my statement is strictly targeted at the blatantly wrong belief that "fashion is art".
Clothes that have no regard to the human body and their place in the wearer's life are as absurd as a chair created to be looked at, instead of sat upon, or a house to fill up a block, instead of being inhabited.
If a designer has such a lack of regard to the functional aspects of fashion, he/she should probably divert his/her attention to a true art form with no functional requirements, like sculpture.
I would have to argue you on this. Have you ever really studied some of Galliano's garments? The technical applications on some of his dresses are insane. I don't think galliano throws his pieces together. He plans them out carefully down to the last detail. I would not say Galliano is innovative in the sense that he is bringing something completely new to the table. I think he is innovative in the way that he assesses the status quo and readdresses it for the mainstream. He challenges conventions of size, volume, porportion, color, texture, ethnocentricism, and culture. He looks at unfashion and integrates it into the mainstream. He does this all with somewhat constant success. That I would say takes calculation. research, and precision.Originally posted by Orochian@Apr 22nd, 2004 - 3:25 pm
Gosh when will these uninformed people finally realize that fashion is not ART, it's DESIGN? And that doesn't mean fashion shouldn't be innovative, for design is the very essence of innovation. But being different for the sake of being different, like 99% of Galliano's work, certainly is no innovation - it's futile deviation. Genuine innovation requires something much more precise, studied, and calculated.