Fashion as Art: Would You Buy/Collect Pieces Just for Its Beauty?

[tiffany]

Very interesting thread. I would say yes (if I had the money) I know many people think fashion is a craft and not an art, but I'd argue that the distinction is not clearly drawn and the two certainly overlap. I wouldn't let it just hang around in a closet though, if I didn't or couldn't wear it I'd display it somehow

 

[sethii]

I wouldn't. I read somewhere, likely on tFS, that fashion doesn't retain value. However if you're buying fashion which has a lot of historical or cultural value and is likely to be sought after in the future then it may be a good investment.

 

[mikeijames]

^most art doesn't retain value either.

 

[farou7a]

I wouldn't. I read somewhere, likely on tFS, that fashion doesn't retain value. However if you're buying fashion which has a lot of historical or cultural value and is likely to be sought after in the future then it may be a good investment.

But its not really about 'value' or resale in the end for a collector is it?
Its just knowing and loving what you own/collect.
Atleast thats what i think.

 

[Boomer]

^ I agree- it's not for resale value, it's just because you love it!! (He said- with over a hundred Polo shirts hanging in the next room- most of them unworn...)

 

[MCStylist]

I buy clothes as a sole purpose of wearing it as an art piece. My closets have pieces that range in color and fit and each and every morning depending on my mood I pick different things and create something new with it.
This is not only something I live by but share with each of my clients.

 

[kasper!]

No,but I would buy fashion photohraphy photo and fashion illustration(like David Downtown) as art.

 

[ChristianThomas]

I'd never buy something that wouldn't get worn by someone.

Sure I wouldn't mind buying a absolutely gorgeous couture masterpiece, but even if it's art I think if it's not getting worn it's a serious waste of the clothing. People didn't slave for many hours on that piece just so it can be bought by me and not get worn.

No matter how amazing it might be, it's been designed by the designer and made by the designer (or seamstress) to be worn and admired. Thus it should be bought by someone who will actually wear it in my opinion.

 

[ChrissyM]

i don't think i would purchase a piece of clothing without the intention of wearing it...
like softgrey mentioned, there have definitely been times when i have bought things simply because i loved the shape, look etc but in all practicality have no place in my life...
but i have confidence that all of these things will be worn some day..
that's what they were made for after all...

and that's when they're at their best...
clothing is so much more vibrant and beautiful when it enhances its wearer...
some of the pieces i have may be over the top or impractical but i can't say i regret any of those purchases..
i get joy out of seeing them, even if they are only hanging/sitting in my closet...
the only regret is that i don't wear them more often..

so, i guess bottom line is that i probably wouldn't invest in any fashion pieces as art objects..
i guess i just don't view clothes that way in the sense that i would invest funds in them for that purpose...

though, i do love to see fashion exhibits in museums (LOVED the Victoria & Albert Museum in London when i lived there a few years back)...
so i have no problem with others collecting and exhibiting

 

[jeremydante]

i think part of what makes fashion so successful is the fact that when people buy it they love how the item makes them feel when wearing it- now with couture pieces, all respect to those who can afford to both buy & wear, is different to me. for instance, a very far stretching instance mind you, if i was given the opportunity to have a vintage, by definition, piece from say..dior- would i wear it? as a male- no. i do think it would be a nice thought to have the piece as a collectors item. that being said, after reading a few statements from forum members- lets not even get into the discussion of collection sale items from H&M or zara.

 

[shockalika]

Personally, I would be more than happy to buy unique and beautiful items and decorate my house with them. For example,a beautiful red dress on the wall and then another one on a dummy in the bedroom. Sweet!

 

[Deborah]

Yes, if I could afford to. But I would probably rather have extravagant items that I could dress up in and waft around the house but would be unwearable outside.

 

[softgrey]

No,but I would buy fashion photohraphy photo and fashion illustration(like David Downtown) as art.

i agree with this...

 

[luckyme]

i would buy a garment that moves me even if i had no intention to wear it. how is this different than acquiring a painting or sculpture whose most obvious installation is to be hung? i, as anyone, has the innate nature to define what we choose to perceive as artful, it can hung, be worn, be environmental, tactile, a million different things...why hinder the expression of a garment so that its only purpose is to be worn?

 

[ChristianThomas]

i would buy a garment that moves me even if i had no intention to wear it. how is this different than acquiring a painting or sculpture whose most obvious installation is to be hung? i, as anyone, has the innate nature to define what we choose to perceive as artful, it can hung, be worn, be environmental, tactile, a million different things...why hinder the expression of a garment so that its only purpose is to be worn?

In my opinion there is quite a difference.

A painting or a sculpture is made specifically to be exhibited and hung for people to see. Clothing is made to be worn. I honestly think that no designer is designing their garments with the idea that someone will hang them on their wall or exhibit them on a doll in their house. They create what they create with the vision of it being worn by someone.

I can understand that someone can view certain garments to be the same as art, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the purpose of that art. A painting is made to be hung, so yes you can buy art and do other things with it, one can use a giant painting as a carpet or they can use it as a window shade.. it can do all that, but really will anyone be able to perceive the art in it's most perfect form of beauty, namely perfectly lit hanging on the wall.. no, because it's on the floor or in front of the window or where ever.
And isn't it the same with clothing.. you can hang it on the wall, put it on a mannequin or just make a lampshade out of it for all I care, but will it ever display the same beauty that the designer intended it to do, namely when being worn by someone as a form or presentation, no, it will never do that.. It won't move, won't live as it should if not on a person.

(of course the exceptions are the vintage items from centuries ago that are preserved in the best way possible.. we're only lucky to be able to still appreciate those)

 

[Lapin de Lune]

I think that I might, if I was in a position to do so.
To me, an exquisite garment is every bit a work of art as a painting/sculpture/ornament, etc. It would depend upon my own personal attachment to the piece, of course, but I could easily imagine displaying such an item in my home.

Now, I might just have to upgrade my home first so as to do justice to the piece itself!

 

[luckyme]

In my opinion there is quite a difference.

A painting or a sculpture is made specifically to be exhibited and hung for people to see. Clothing is made to be worn. I honestly think that no designer is designing their garments with the idea that someone will hang them on their wall or exhibit them on a doll in their house. They create what they create with the vision of it being worn by someone.

I can understand that someone can view certain garments to be the same as art, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the purpose of that art. A painting is made to be hung, so yes you can buy art and do other things with it, one can use a giant painting as a carpet or they can use it as a window shade.. it can do all that, but really will anyone be able to perceive the art in it's most perfect form of beauty, namely perfectly lit hanging on the wall.. no, because it's on the floor or in front of the window or where ever.
And isn't it the same with clothing.. you can hang it on the wall, put it on a mannequin or just make a lampshade out of it for all I care, but will it ever display the same beauty that the designer intended it to do, namely when being worn by someone as a form or presentation, no, it will never do that.. It won't move, won't live as it should if not on a person.

(of course the exceptions are the vintage items from centuries ago that are preserved in the best way possible.. we're only lucky to be able to still appreciate those)

i understand where you are coming from but in theory this doesnt hold water to me. look at hussein chalayan's work...he has been defined as "an artist and catalyst for change of what it means to wear something" or for that matter, is it a garment or sculpture?

beautifuldecay.com

 

[ChristianThomas]

i understand where you are coming from but in theory this doesnt hold water to me. look at hussein chalayan's work...he has been defined as "an artist and catalyst for change of what it means to wear something" or for that matter, is it a garment or sculpture?

That's why I was talking about garments that are designed to be meant to be worn... of course this doesn't include the creations that, while being wearable, are not functional. The experimental designers may of course design wearable garments in which a person can't normally function, but that would also mean that the designer didn't design them to be worn by people, but more as a statement/art...

 

[indepwe]

If I was to say, buy Coco Chanel's old ballet flats on ebay or something then I wouldn't buy it, I would just have them because they are a piece of art in its own way.

 

[LeBonChic]

Just think of such valuable collectibles as china or embroidered carpet. Of course you dont have to use an exquisite china vase to display flowers or use a multi-grand carpet on the doorstep. Just place it where it should be.
Same with fashion as art. I would buy those pieces along with high quality mannequins or hangers and display them as collectibles. Fashion ppl have been doing justice for fashion as a form of art (art of textile, not a vanity satisfier or a shallow industry without vision), so if we are with a lot of money, why dont we treat fashion as art ?

Once I have a haute couture piece in my hand, I will never expect to wear it, I will expect to keep it as art.