Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Issue of Authorship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Faust
    kitsch killer
    • Sep 2006
    • 37852

    The Issue of Authorship

    So, our discussion with onemancult brought up an interesting issue - one that I think could stimulate an interesting discussion. It's the problem of authorship. It's been an issue in art and literature for some time now, but not (to my knowledge) in fashion. The basic question is, can and, more importantly, should you separate the creator from his work? Should you know about the designer before you judge his clothes?

    I think it's a very interesting subject (if you think about it, that is). I am not talking about people who buy into a brand - the answer there is pretty obvious. I am talking about people who look deeper than that.
    Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

    StyleZeitgeist Magazine
  • Johnny
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2006
    • 1923

    #2
    i agree.

    Comment

    • Faust
      kitsch killer
      • Sep 2006
      • 37852

      #3
      LOL, then say something!
      Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

      StyleZeitgeist Magazine

      Comment

      • Johnny
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2006
        • 1923

        #4
        sorry, to be serious, yes it's an interesting question.

        i think Faust you are very much of the view that the provenance of the work is important. there are two sides to it. i think you don't like ervell because he was a v editor. that's not the only reason, but it contributes; specifically it means that you don't give him the benefit of the doubt. that's the first bit. the second aspect is more problematic i think and that's where one bestows meaning and virtue on the product, assumed because of its author - and specifically because of what the author has achieved in the past. i think i do this quite a lot - but I'm not the only one. i'd like to think about it further too.

        Comment

        • tweeds
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2006
          • 246

          #5
          short and dirty answer: no, i do not feel like provenance should come into play, but yes, it inevitably does.

          i think the same points that John Berger makes about oil painting can be made about fashion (and most other creative enterprises?). the mythology that surrounds a designer today is often so thick that it both alienates would-be viewers and reinforces itself in the minds of those party to it.

          Margiela would be a natural example of a house that attempted to remove the author, and i think it succeeded initially, but the Maison today is a far cry from where it was in the 90s...
          SITE | TWITTER

          Comment

          • lowrey
            ventiundici
            • Dec 2006
            • 8383

            #6
            to be honest I didn't use to really value or pay much attention to this earlier, but have become more and more interested in what goes into the creation process as well as what sort of person is behind it. in some cases it might not make a difference to how I view the end product, but with many of these niche labels we talk of here it has really expanded my view of the whole process of garment making.

            I think it can be defined in different levels of interest and/or involvement, the most basic one being where you simply evaluate individual objects for what they are, not where they come from. alternatively, many value the overall aesthetic or concept certain designers/brands portray, but not necessarily who is actually behind the label, or what kind of philosophy there is. I'd guess that this or a variation of it is probably the most common way of thinking. or lastly, there are those who are interested in who makes a garment, how, why, what influences them etc. I'm not classifying these in any sort of an order by the way, everyone has their own way of viewing it. I'd say those who are here on SZ probably fall into the second and third types.

            I'm not sure if I might've strayed a bit off topic here, but to answer the original question, I don't think you have to know anything about the designer, but in some cases it can certainly have an effect on how you view the work. but whether or not its necessary is a personal decision, I guess.
            "AVANT GUARDE HIGHEST FASHION. NOW NOW this is it people, these are the brands no one fucking knows and people are like WTF. they do everything by hand in their freaking secret basement and shit."

            STYLEZEITGEIST MAGAZINE | BLOG

            Comment

            • Faust
              kitsch killer
              • Sep 2006
              • 37852

              #7
              Actually, Johnny, I don't have a clear cut answer. I tend to gravitate towards a No, but I am not entirely sure. The fact that Ervell is an editor of V. does not make his reputation, but certainly explains his lack of skill and talent. But this thread is not about Ervell.

              What got me first thinking about this is that people constantly ask me how I got into fashion, and for a while I did not have an answer to that question. So I started backtracking and remembering my first encounters with the clothes of designers I have come to love - Ann Demeulemeester, Raf Simons, and Helmut Lang in particular. Now, I had no idea who these people were or what they were about. Hell, I didn't even know their names. But when I saw their product, I was immediately drawn to it. There was something about the clothes that made me feel that I've been looking for something without knowing it myself and finally found it. Then I started to uncover what that something is - certain ideas about music, poetry, character, a way of life that were embedded in the clothes - in their color, cut, texture, silhouette, etc. That finally led me to ask who these people were that made these garments and whether we really shared certain values and tastes. See, I did not have to read interviews with Ann or interview her in turn to know what she is about - I already knew her through the clothes she made. I think this is rare and very special. I also think it's one of the marks of a successful creative designer to manifest ideas into the clothes - moreover if these ideas are abstract and are not readily discernable but take the "reader" some time to get to them. Now, I know I am not the only one - I think Casey had a similar reaction to Cloak. Maybe you had something akin to this when you first saw CDG. I don't know. But people do have this reaction. I call it the Wim Wenders reaction, because he is probably the most famous example.

              "The meeting of the minds that is documented in "Notebook on Cities and Clothes," Wim Wenders's film about the Japanese fashion designer Yohji Yamamoto, began fairly inauspiciously. Mr. Wenders bought a shirt and a jacket that bore Mr. Yamamoto's label. Perhaps there was nothing cataclysmic in this, and yet it sent Mr. Wenders into a flurry of meditation and reflection, just as so many things do. "I felt protected like a knight in his armor -- by what, a shirt and a jacket?" he observed. "This jacket reminded me of my childhood and my father as if the essence of this memory were tailored into it." Later on, he asked, "What did Yamamoto know about me -- about everybody?""

              So, yea, in a way I am thinking that no, you don't need to know the creator. A month ago one of the designers championed here complained to me, saying that I should get to know the designer before judging his clothes. That seemed a bit perposterous to me, and I told him that an author who sends his creations into public domain should and will be judged by them and not by what he says about them.

              But, then, of course there are instances that knowing the creator and what went into the process of creation is eye-opening, so what do I know. Not to mention that I am undermining my own profession here.
              Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

              StyleZeitgeist Magazine

              Comment

              • gerry
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2008
                • 309

                #8
                This is an interesting topic.

                My own answer is (unfortunately) quite personal: The person perceived to be behind a garment and (inevitably) a brand is very important.

                This is because I view clothing (in its primary form) to be a means for defining and projecting identity. I don't want to wear "art" or "costume" or something that is outside the realm of my own daily life. While I may not want to admit it, the intentions of a designer help me judge what is costume and what is not.

                For example, Margiela's work, while it contains elements that may be considered fanciful and costume-like, are intrinsically about clothing and identity. To me those things wouldn't be considered costume despite however flamboyant the physical elements of the work (tabi boots, etc) because of the overarching themes that they contain.

                If I was simply looking for quality in designer's work (as is the defense that many have for the cost of designer goods and which I sometimes do) I would be buying brands that focused on that. Loro Piana, Borrelli, etc.

                Despite saying all this... I have to note that in theory the designer's work would speak for itself... which would bring me to be interested in said designer... which has been the case so far.

                >_< Too many ellipses

                Comment

                • Venus in Furs
                  Banned
                  • Aug 2009
                  • 355

                  #9
                  I think Mike raises some intersting points which could be discussed with relation to critique of aesthetic judgement, particularly aesthetic characterisation which explains how background information plays a role in aesthetic judgement and how we apprehend someones work.

                  It is interesting to think of high fashion, particularly artisan designers like ma+ and carol, in terms of aesthetic characterisation with relation to artworks. Aesthetic characterisation is a perceptual construct influenced by background information and experience. The apprehension of certain objects requires the appropriate background information in order to judge it effectively. With any man made object there is human intention behind its making and unless we engage with this intention then the experience loses its edge. Background information and the intentions of the designer bring the relevant design aspects into focus. Ultimately, the correct interpretation of a work is that which could be considered to be compatible with what the artist could have intended, in order to make this characterisation one must have the sufficient background knowledge (eg. work's location within the tradition, whether it emulates, subverts, rejects or redirects default conventions and art practises of the time, genres and styles within which it is located, use of symbolisation, parody, irony and so forth).

                  Unfortunately it's too early in the morning and I'm trying to get ready for uni so this might not make a whole heap of sense. I'll try and expand on this later. I recommend Aesthetics and Material Beauty: Aesthetics Naturalized by Jennifer McMahon though for anyone interested in a kind of expansion and reworking of Kant's critique of judgement and how it applies to the aesthetic judgement of artworks.
                  Last edited by Venus in Furs; 10-19-2009, 07:30 PM.

                  Comment

                  • Venus in Furs
                    Banned
                    • Aug 2009
                    • 355

                    #10
                    Faust, if you want to understand what you just described I highly recommend you look over Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Judgement', and McMahon's 'Aesthetics and Material Beauty'

                    Comment

                    • zamb
                      Senior Member
                      • Nov 2006
                      • 5834

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Venus in Furs View Post
                      Faust, if you want to understand what you just described I highly recommend you look over Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Judgement', and McMahon's 'Aesthetics and Material Beauty'
                      yes, send him over into my town.....................
                      “You know,” he says, with a resilient smile, “it is a hard world for poets.”
                      .................................................. .......................


                      Zam Barrett Spring 2017 Now in stock

                      Comment

                      • Venus in Furs
                        Banned
                        • Aug 2009
                        • 355

                        #12
                        Ha, I think fashion, especially the aforementioned ma+ and CCP as well as Carpe Diem etc, would be very interesting to look at with regard to the Critique of Judgement and the Analytic of the Beautiful.

                        It relates directly to what Faust was talking about above, particularly this: "But when I saw their product, I was immediately drawn to it. There was something about the clothes that made me feel that I've been looking for something without knowing it myself and finally found it. Then I started to uncover what that something is - certain ideas about music, poetry, character, a way of life that were embedded in the clothes - in their color, cut, texture, silhouette, etc. That finally led me to ask who these people were that made these garments and whether we really shared certain values and tastes. See, I did not have to read interviews with Ann or interview her in turn to know what she is about - I already knew her through the clothes she made. I think this is rare and very special".

                        It also, however, allows for discussion on background information and artistic intention.

                        Comment

                        • zamb
                          Senior Member
                          • Nov 2006
                          • 5834

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Faust View Post
                          So, our discussion with onemancult brought up an interesting issue - one that I think could stimulate an interesting discussion. It's the problem of authorship. It's been an issue in art and literature for some time now, but not (to my knowledge) in fashion. The basic question is, can and, more importantly, should you separate the creator from his work? Should you know about the designer before you judge his clothes?

                          I think it's a very interesting subject (if you think about it, that is). I am not talking about people who buy into a brand - the answer there is pretty obvious. I am talking about people who look deeper than that.
                          I am trying to formulate a response to these two aspects of your statements but my mind wont let me, I began originally by saying that there are times when one should................
                          however, at this stage of my life I personally cannot do it, and I now find myself emotionally contradicting the logical position that I want to argue for.
                          I need to know who the creators are, and what are their motivations behind creating the products they do. I think this is even more complicated for me than many here because there are certain personal and philosophical positions (you might know these more than others Faust,) that I hold that makes it difficult for me to separate the designer from the objects they create..............
                          not just the objects but even the very processes and materials used in the creation process.
                          I think we have come to a point in the world, where meaning and message in objects have a greater importance that ever, as GBS said, we are really at the end of the industrial age, in a sense.

                          I remember reading about Ann D, wanting to create a shoe heel, and the original prototype was created by her hammering, gluing and baking wood and leather in her oven in her own kitchen to achieve the results she wanted, it resonated with me because I need to feel the connection between the creator and the objects, anything outside of that I begin to feel cheated.................
                          “You know,” he says, with a resilient smile, “it is a hard world for poets.”
                          .................................................. .......................


                          Zam Barrett Spring 2017 Now in stock

                          Comment

                          • Faust
                            kitsch killer
                            • Sep 2006
                            • 37852

                            #14
                            Originally posted by gerry View Post
                            This is an interesting topic.

                            My own answer is (unfortunately) quite personal: The person perceived to be behind a garment and (inevitably) a brand is very important.

                            This is because I view clothing (in its primary form) to be a means for defining and projecting identity. I don't want to wear "art" or "costume" or something that is outside the realm of my own daily life. While I may not want to admit it, the intentions of a designer help me judge what is costume and what is not.

                            For example, Margiela's work, while it contains elements that may be considered fanciful and costume-like, are intrinsically about clothing and identity. To me those things wouldn't be considered costume despite however flamboyant the physical elements of the work (tabi boots, etc) because of the overarching themes that they contain.

                            If I was simply looking for quality in designer's work (as is the defense that many have for the cost of designer goods and which I sometimes do) I would be buying brands that focused on that. Loro Piana, Borrelli, etc.

                            Despite saying all this... I have to note that in theory the designer's work would speak for itself... which would bring me to be interested in said designer... which has been the case so far.

                            >_< Too many ellipses
                            Funny you should pick Margiela, who is all about letting the work speak for itself :-) I think my story above shows that you can discern designer's intentions, including identity formation, through the clothes.
                            Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                            StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                            Comment

                            • Faust
                              kitsch killer
                              • Sep 2006
                              • 37852

                              #15
                              Originally posted by merz
                              You can, and people do for some reason. Maybe to give themselves something to talk about? I think clothes should speak entirely for themselves though, and be given context by any individual buyer, owner and wearer more so than have those people look to the designer for that context, like mannequins waiting to be dressed.

                              I don't remember whether it was laika, kira or gerry that said this, but there was something expressed once along the lines of ..being enamoured/fascinated with the designer, and the coherent universe/context they have created for their clothes, and by that extent their wearers, to exist in..(VB being perhaps the most obvious example, but there are many more..)

                              i'm always more partial to personal interpretation of other people's vision than most literal takes, i guess..
                              It was Laika, but she told me that in person and I don't remember seeing you in that bar.
                              Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                              StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X
                              😀
                              🥰
                              🤢
                              😎
                              😡
                              👍
                              👎