Is Fashion Art?

[kiwigrape]

is fashion art?

there always were disputes about fashion being part of fine art.

I always thought of fashion as a part of fine art and even as the most touched yet untouched part of it.
In my opinion, fashion is the leading branch of art, not because it sews something Inestimably precious, which can be equaled by the greatest artists, but because it reflects the traces that society and humanity leave behind in history with materialism.
fashion is the biggest self-expression way out there. in my opinion clothes and personal style describe the clothes owner way better than the owner can imagine. we even subconsciously choose clothes that we identify with ourselves and our ideological ideals. individuals stick to the groups they feel connected to mentally with interests, which turns individuals into a group, groups into a community, and communities into a general society. if you have found your individuality it is impossible to not show it physically, throughout fashion. which talks about the psychology of humans and affects society and humans themselves. and because of time and era, it is always evolving and changing.

fashion always had a very important place in our lives, whether we like to accept it or not. even if we believe that we are part of it or not. we are it's center and by our individualism, personal liking, and taste, we create interest which creates fashion collections. just like art, our liking, taste, mentality, and ideology create eras that create artists who create artworks. The same things affect other stuff in history. we affect and create eras without realizing it. art with it. every change is happening at the same time, when an era changes with its taste and ideology art and fashion follow.

looking back at historical eras, we all remember certain years mostly by not buildings, transports, culinary or other parts from those years. we remember them from clothes. what humans were wearing.

As people's society, style, and environment changed, as a result of political, material, and historical changes. for example, as the low-waisted jeans of the 2000s, grunge was replaced and went out of style years later, in the same way, the same system - but on a large scale - simply replaced realism, and absurdism and abstract art took its place, in the same way as The Renaissance era was replaced and Victorian clothing came into fashion years later.

By this I tried to say that when we look back we are left with things from history that reflect our inner world, the mentality and ideology (and nothing expresses them better than clothes) that people carried at the time, which were used for visual decoration and to express individualism - race, culture, material stratum and other physical roots... fashion Compared to art, it is material. Art is about some spiritual depth and it is not in use. it hangs on the wall and thus fulfills its spiritual purpose, it is completely untouchable and physically inaccessible to any human after creation. However, it is precisely because fashion and clothing are the opposite of all of the above that is why I perceive it as the most tangible and at the same time inviolable art form. It is worn, sewn, dressed, and has individual details after use, as a result of which it itself becomes an object of interest and history. Not all paintings depict the present life of humans. their daily routine, their life cycle, and them in general. When it comes to fashion, everything that fashion produces is about people, their daily lives, and the emotional feelings and attitudes they have towards any current, political emotional, or any other topic...

An individual artist's painting may not be understandable to all people When a person with an individual style says more than is expected.

that's why I think fashion is art. (John Galliano, Alexander McQueen, Vivienne Westwood, and YSL are my personal toppings to this whole message)

now. after saying why fashion is an art and reviewing my point of view about it generally. I understand why some people don't consider fashion part of fine art. (and somewhere I agree with that but, not fully) fashion icon Karl Lagerfeld didn't consider fashion art. as he said - "art is art. fashion is fashion". I appreciate fine art and I Love it. I have huge respect for it and realize the value it has in lives and history. yes. I think that Michelangello and YSL are on different clubs but I don't think why fashion can't be considered as fine art after millions of priceless creations and place it has in our lives.

 

[blueorchid]

Sometimes when I read the debate about fashion, video games, photography, furniture, interior design, etc. being art I just think... why is it so bad to NOT be an art? Fashion is an applied art, not a fine art. Why is that a bad thing? Why do people need to be declared artists to feel that their work is meaningful?

 

[LadyJunon]

Personally, I believe that they are two main types of art:
Fine Arts: art to be observed
Applied Arts: art to be used

Personally, I believe that fashion is an applied art. The reason why is that, fashion is the product of artistic application on clothing, like architecture in the product of artistic application on building.

This means that, even at its most conceptual, fashion is meant to be worn. At the minimum, it should be able to be put on and taken off the body without needing to be taken apart.

If anyway, runway shows (performance art) themselves could be considered a form of fine art. Editorials (photography and cinema) could be too.

 

[Nimsay]

if its an applied art then anything is an art.

In my opinion
Art is something that communicates ideas to the viewer without words.

That means some Fashion is Art but most is not.

 

[blueorchid]

if its an applied art then anything is an art.

I mean... that's not true. Applied arts are very specific categories: ceramics, graphic design, interior design, crafts, sculpture, industrial design, etc.

Personally, I don't find the distinction of something being art or not meaningful anyway. So what if it's art? Good art and bad art are art all the same. Something being art doesn't elevate it to something being "good" or worthwhile.

 

[Avonlea]

No, it's not. I am sick of everything being called art these days. This word has completely lost its meaning. You design clothes? Then you are a designer. I miss the old guard of couturiers. They just focused on their job and made women look beautiful.

 

[gallianostan]

no. you're welcome!

 

[susseinmcswanny]

Personally, I don't find the distinction of something being art or not meaningful anyway. So what if it's art? Good art and bad art are art all the same. Something being art doesn't elevate it to something being "good" or worthwhile.

But really tho. So many things can evoke messages and feelings. Meaning does not need to be sought in art alone.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

Now wait a minute

 

[Cocteau Stone]

Sometimes when I read the debate about fashion, video games, photography, furniture, interior design, etc. being art I just think... why is it so bad to NOT be an art? Fashion is an applied art, not a fine art. Why is that a bad thing? Why do people need to be declared artists to feel that their work is meaningful?

About to go on a long tirade but you've summed it up really well. What is even more odd about it is that people are so afraid of fashion being fashion that they get really angry when you express a differing opinion to them.

Not long ago I was talking to a lecturer/professor about general practice things, and I said that what I do isn't art, it's fashion and really just clothes at the end of the day pretty happily. She retaliated and argued that "I should think more highly of myself" and that I'm not putting enough value into what I do because "to not call it art is such a disservice". Wanted to slap her in the face and tell her to listen to herself. To use art as a term of validation or authentication is so conceited. Although this is my fault for having these types of discussions with lecturers and professors in the area of arts...

Maybe it's the filter bubbles that a lot of them subject themselves to and the fact they start to make it too personal and idealistic. Ties itself well into the idea of the "tortured artist" trope I suppose which never ends well, but is always highly acclaimed if not heavily romanticised.

 

[GoldenPetals]

A universal definition for "art" does not exist, therefore the question is not definitively answerable. It depends on which of the many subjective definitions for "art" you use.

 

[whatdoyoumean]

I consider many things to be art and fashion is one of them. But basically, I agree with the comment above.

 

[Phuel]

…Standards are so low that much of what is grifted as modern art is nothing more than outright trolling nowadays, so why not fashion..??? Everything is art; Everyone with a TikTok account is an artist; and the same people cannot just list one occupation as a profession— it has to be as many labels/titles as possible: Entrepreneur/Model/Activist/Mother/Artist/Influencer/Telemarketer etc etc so exhausting.

When I was in school, there was always a certain group of artists that mesmerized, spellbound and absolutely captivated with their imageries; their work were always colossal and dwarfed and enveloped you when you’re standing before them. I’d get lost in every single texture and felt time stood still amongst their creations. And still, there were always this presence of lightness, even a wink from them— that it’s not that serious. It’s the same when looking at certain designers’ shows: The sheer force of creative vision that overwhelms, mesmerizes, captivates, and totally spellbinds— and still a lightness of being to these shows; and that's even before accessing the pure masterclass of dressmaking and tailoring of the garments. Those are instances of fashion transcending beyond the mere dog-and-pony show.(It’s maybe why I never liked Hussein Chalayan— as talented as he was in his prime. Just so serious.)

Are McQueen’s designs art because his vision was so all-encompassing, from every single separate that made up a total look, to the styling/cast/hair and MU/presentation and attitude, as opposed to someone like Sharon Wauchob, whose offering is so straightforward direct with only the garments up for offer and nothing else? Depending on the individual, one may be more artistic and producing wearable art than the other. Or not art at all— just beautifully-constructed clothes and strong marketing. Are the paintings shown at community art fairs lesser because it’s not displayed at Bruno Bischofberger? …Is our girl Elena Velaz’s fashions and presentation not worthy of artistic status as someone as consistently masterful as Galliano because some deem her fashions reductive, and she sells on Insta, when she clearly pours her blood/sweat/soul into its production? It is if it’s what you want it to be. But just like the meaning of icon has lost all its once exclusive meaning, so has the meaning of art.

Just a FYI for those that don’t interact much with the commoners: They hold current-day Prada as the epitome of luxury/refinement/vision and what the highest of fashion standard— and integrity (LOL) is. And if you really want to be as deepcut common as possible, take a walk on the commonest side— where not only are video games praised as art, but action figures offers at big box stores are considered ”works of art"… One man’s treasure is another man’s trash and all that comes to mind…

 

[Cocteau Stone]

^ It's going to make me sound a little elitist, but the fact that a whole set population of people view Funko Pops as something of a high standard confuses me. But it's also in lines with the likes of KAWS and even Koons, "ready mades" that are viewed as art because they increase in value as long as you keep them in absolute pristine condition and the hype remains.

"Art" at large nowadays is more investment now that I think about it... Like an Herme's bag or "vintage" Prada.

 

[blueorchid]

"Art" at large nowadays is more investment now that I think about it... Like an Herme's bag or "vintage" Prada.

An investment... or a way to launder money.

 

[runner]

what is the meaning of art - architecture, music, painting or poetry if not the anticipation of a suspended, wonder-struck moment, a miraculous moment.
- bataille

^this kind of reasoning works. so some fashion dealers have been willing to use the word of art, even if they actually don't think it is art. for the magic word can make higher pricing look more persuasive or assertive.

picasso for matisse, for example
this doesn't happen, *basically*.
if fashion mammonists want to call it art, they first have to say no to their own necromancy.
years ago yohji didn't go to balenciaga. there should have been some reasons.
but probably yohji thought the founder designer is irreplaceable.

 

[Lola701]

Fashion is not Art but some designers are definitely artists.
I apply the word Art with the idea of a creative intention. When you look at the work of Cristobal Balenciaga, Adrian or Madame Gres, you recognize a creative intention.
Chanel might be one of the greatest designer of all time, you don’t recognize a sense of creative intention in her work…Even though she was creative. I would say maybe inventive.
Gianni Versace was an artist to me but Donatella isn’t. Miuccia Prada despite being linked to the Art world is not an artist IMO. She is more like Chanel.

I think sometimes names like McQueen and Galliano or YSL are thrown around because of the dramaturgie, the theatricality of their work but for me, it’s almost superficial because only the creative intention is valid.

I’ve always found that discussion about fashion being an Art interesting because it’s the discussion that for me really started when Pierre Bergé wanted to sacrilize YSL, as of being a designer is not enough.

Fashion doesn’t have to scream and shout to have a legitimacy in the world. And it doesn’t have to feel embarrassed of it frivolous nature.
I think that Art as paintings, sculpture and performance has remained at the top of the creative mountain because it’s still the only discipline that has gatekeepers.

But sometimes I’m asking myself the question when it comes to fashion photography and the division between « commercial » and « artistic » work. Photography is recognized as Art but there’s a sense of hierarchy regarding a photographer’s work. Helmut Newton’s work for Vogue has been regarded as part of Art for a longtime compared to his commercial work. The same can be said about Avedon, whose portraits series (and a handful of Vogue Eds) have became part of the Art conversation.

But the lines are blurred IMO when the commercial work shows strong creative intention. When you look at Avedon’s Pirelli calendar or some Versace campaigns, it’s kind of hard sometimes to not think of Art. What to say of Guy Bourdin who pushed the limits in his campaigns for Charles Jourdan!

To conclude, I must say that it’s very difficult for me to take seriously a designer or photographer who sees and describes himself as an Artist.

 

[runner]

"the idea that everything is what it is, and not another thing. A painting is a painting. Sculpture is sculpture. A poem is a poem, not prose. Etcetera. And the complementary idea: a painting can be “literary” or sculptural, a poem can be prose, theatre can emulate and incorporate cinema, cinema can be theatrical.
We need a new idea. It will probably be a very simple one. Will we be able to recognize it? "

- susan sontag / film and theatre