On a recent shopping trip down Bond Street I must confess I felt like I was taking a stroll in a gallery district - all the designer shops looked and felt like art galleries and the attitude given by the retail assistants wasn't much different from the one given by 'galerinas'. There are of course the concept stores (i.e. Prada in Soho,NY; LV in Champs Elysee, Paris with its own gallery inside) that have been around for some time now and it doesn't come as a surprise to any shopper the lack of clothes on display giving the amount of space dedicated to art. What I mean is that every store is becoming like a white cube (pun intended). On the other hand, artists such as Takashi Murakami, have openly acknowledged their production, marketing and sale strategies as being like a brand's. Oh! And let's not forget the fully functional LV Shop inside his 2007 retrospective exhibition. Let's please discuss why this is happening?
F-art-shion
- Thread starter Miss C
- Start date
gius
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 10,859
- Reaction score
- 12
I think it's a whole mixture of things...
from several years ago, (2005 and earlier) when crafts were returning to fashion.. to compete with high street brands that could imitate designs for much cheaper. Making things more difficult, more special to copy
to entice the customer to buy the authentic thing
when Prada created the "Below the waist" exhibition with all of her skirts, it seemed that fashion or her work had been brought up to another level. Since art is considered less 'superficial', taking fashion there would invite a wider spectrum of viewers, than just your average fashion enthusiast... and maybe increase appreciation and make clothes generally more valuable
all over online boutiques they describe the clothes with a hand finish or something that takes a lot of time.. (can be a trick sometimes.. I remember seeing some things that had hand-made details and thought, oh that only takes a few seconds. that's nothing!)
but...at the same time artists seem to be turning into celebrities too... you hear terms like overrated or hype. and i think some people in the other thread on investment pieces (buying future would-be-vintage) mentioned the loss of meaning in art... it started to become a commodity, another thing to buy, to be a part of
so, i guess one could just ask... what are all these people at Prada or LV looking for when they put galleries in their shops. what do galleries mean to them, or more what do they think galleries mean to other people? i want to say actually, art has become a status symbol. it's a mark of refinement, taste, and money...which fashion itself had but lost
from several years ago, (2005 and earlier) when crafts were returning to fashion.. to compete with high street brands that could imitate designs for much cheaper. Making things more difficult, more special to copy
to entice the customer to buy the authentic thing
when Prada created the "Below the waist" exhibition with all of her skirts, it seemed that fashion or her work had been brought up to another level. Since art is considered less 'superficial', taking fashion there would invite a wider spectrum of viewers, than just your average fashion enthusiast... and maybe increase appreciation and make clothes generally more valuable
all over online boutiques they describe the clothes with a hand finish or something that takes a lot of time.. (can be a trick sometimes.. I remember seeing some things that had hand-made details and thought, oh that only takes a few seconds. that's nothing!)
but...at the same time artists seem to be turning into celebrities too... you hear terms like overrated or hype. and i think some people in the other thread on investment pieces (buying future would-be-vintage) mentioned the loss of meaning in art... it started to become a commodity, another thing to buy, to be a part of
so, i guess one could just ask... what are all these people at Prada or LV looking for when they put galleries in their shops. what do galleries mean to them, or more what do they think galleries mean to other people? i want to say actually, art has become a status symbol. it's a mark of refinement, taste, and money...which fashion itself had but lost
BerlinRocks
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 11,216
- Reaction score
- 13
well that shops looks like old white cubes isn't new ...
I think it should move on ... But it's not tomorrow, I guess.
And some artists got influenced by the shop display for their work (Jeff Koons, Haim Steinbach), the same way shop were influenced by minimalism (since minimalism, even in fashion, is dead. perhaps it's time to move on another display.)
See Andy Warhol who said that people bought his Electric Chair just because it matches the wallpaper colour. See also different gallerists and art collectors. Things are tending to change with some artists in the 2000s (we are more and more on a political, social, ecology level now). But the limit btw commodities and art was something really big in the 90s (see Tobias Rehberger, Jorge Pardo and perhaps the Relationnal Aesthetics artists).
I see no problem with art flirting with fashion, and fashion flirting with art, but the art world doesn't really like this relationships, coz Fashion is seen as something superficial (as Gius said).
are you sure "fart" is a good title ? lol.
I think it should move on ... But it's not tomorrow, I guess.
And some artists got influenced by the shop display for their work (Jeff Koons, Haim Steinbach), the same way shop were influenced by minimalism (since minimalism, even in fashion, is dead. perhaps it's time to move on another display.)
it started a long time ago.
See Andy Warhol who said that people bought his Electric Chair just because it matches the wallpaper colour. See also different gallerists and art collectors. Things are tending to change with some artists in the 2000s (we are more and more on a political, social, ecology level now). But the limit btw commodities and art was something really big in the 90s (see Tobias Rehberger, Jorge Pardo and perhaps the Relationnal Aesthetics artists).
I see no problem with art flirting with fashion, and fashion flirting with art, but the art world doesn't really like this relationships, coz Fashion is seen as something superficial (as Gius said).
are you sure "fart" is a good title ? lol.
gius
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 10,859
- Reaction score
- 12
ah you're right.. Andy W ^^.. Even Mona Lisa maybe. i also remember myself suggesting someone look at rothko for ideas for painting their house's walls.. 
and i didn't think about the meaning behind rothko's work (tigerrouge mentioned it). the reasons he made it. just after the 'appearance.'
i don't mind fashion mixing with art either.. i think it is all the same. but of course it depends... on the mind-set of the designer, the person who's marketing and the customer. it can be seen either negative or positive. i have friends or people i know in art school, half who are interested in fashion and half who think something bad of it.. but i sometimes think the ones who think badly don't know very much about anything :-D
anyway it seems to be a good development
this generation is exposed to so much now. all the little children know the names chanel and chloe. they read the magazines, watch the shows or they watch tv and ask what nicole kidman is wearing, etc. i couldn't imagine any of this when i was my sister's age, in grade school. i still watched cartoons! but now fashion and art seems more commonplace --even if you or your family is not interested in it you will still come into contact with it...
and i didn't think about the meaning behind rothko's work (tigerrouge mentioned it). the reasons he made it. just after the 'appearance.' i don't mind fashion mixing with art either.. i think it is all the same. but of course it depends... on the mind-set of the designer, the person who's marketing and the customer. it can be seen either negative or positive. i have friends or people i know in art school, half who are interested in fashion and half who think something bad of it.. but i sometimes think the ones who think badly don't know very much about anything :-D
anyway it seems to be a good development
this generation is exposed to so much now. all the little children know the names chanel and chloe. they read the magazines, watch the shows or they watch tv and ask what nicole kidman is wearing, etc. i couldn't imagine any of this when i was my sister's age, in grade school. i still watched cartoons! but now fashion and art seems more commonplace --even if you or your family is not interested in it you will still come into contact with it...
