Philosophical topics

[Analytic Philosopher]

Fashion is just a dialog that we engage in with the clothing we wear and designers are just the people building our vocabulary for us. Art itself is just a form of communication and a way to think and to organize your thought. It's better to worry about what the artist is trying to say than whether or not he has made art because art is x but this work is very clearly y.

Your normative statement that we ought to be concerned with what an an artist is trying to say rather than whether or not their work is a work of art may be correct, but I'm not sure I see how that devalues the enterprise of demarcating different art forms and media. Don't we care which medium an artist is communicating to us in? If we do, then why shouldn't we be interested in understanding what that art form or medium is? And what about when we try to analyze an art form or a medium as a whole and not just the work of a particular artist? How are we supposed to do that without a meaningful definition of what a particular art form or medium is?

[Patroklus]

Maybe at one point in time, but Duchamp's urinal is nearly 100 years old now and it's probably time that we move beyond worrying about what is art or what is the medium. If I mix a dye and apply it to a pair of jeans with a paintbrush, have I dyed or painted them? What if I boil the jeans in paint? Where do we draw the line between a cappella and spoken word? More importantly than any of that, though, who really cares?

Since art is just a method of thought and communication I prefer to examine the work of an artist in relation to other artists in all mediums, at least as far as this is concerned. The only people who should really be worried about their medium are the artists themselves, and then only because they need to learn how to use it effectively.

[Analytic Philosopher]

More importantly than any of that, though, who really cares?

I think a lot of people really care. I think, for the most part, people believe that different art forms or media have different salient properties, and that to really understand particular art works one ought to understand more than just its message, if that can even plausibly be somehow divorced from the packaging. It sounds to me like you think the analysis of any particular art work should focus solely on the message of that art work. That seems wrong to me. Surely we care about more than just what the artist was trying to say. We care, for example, how they said it. Furthermore, we might ask why the manner in which they chose to say it was so effective. Would it have been more effective in another art form or medium? Why or why not? I think your example of Duchamp's urinal is interesting, at least in part, for exactly these reasons. If Duchamp was just trying to say something, why didn't he just say it? Why did he decide to use a urinal? These are all questions, I think, that are interesting, and which one can't really answer satisfactorily without appealing to something like the art form or the medium.

The only people who should really be worried about their medium are the artists themselves, and then only because they need to learn how to use it effectively.

Didn't you just argue that the art form or medium doesn't matter? All that matters is what the artist is saying, not how they say it. If it matters for the artist, why doesn't it matter for us?

[Analytic Philosopher]

In the above quote you seem to take the term "fashion" to mean the art form, if I understand you right.

I think you may have caught me being a little sloppy. What I meant, and what I think Pumpfish and I were disagreeing about, is what constitutes a work of fashion. This, I think, is a different question than what is fashion, period. That being said, I think the definition of what counts as a work of fashion is going to be very similar to a definition of what fashion is.

Don't we just get a circular definition, because in order to choose which designers fall into the group of "fashion designers" that have the intentions you mention, it seems to me we already have to presuppose a certain notion of "fashion"?

I think it depends on what you mean when you say that we have to presuppose a certain notion of fashion. I certainly think that we have to presuppose some things about fashion, given that we are not creating a new art form or medium, but rather trying to describe one that already exists. As for my definition being circular for the reason you mention, I'm not sure I see it. I take it that the relationship you mention would actually go in the other direction. That is, we take it that designers that have certain intentions are fashion designers in virtue of the content of those intentions, namely that they create garments and so on.

Now, we could say, we'd restrict the definition to the "good" or "established" designers, but isn't this then just begging the question?

I'm not quite sure that this is actually a case of begging the question, but I do think that this is exactly what we don't want to do.

Don't these terms presuppose some normative framework that should actually capture the very notion of "good fashion" (i.e. what a "good" fashion designer actually means, in view of which criteria do we decide that)?

I hope not. I think this is a major pitfall of any subjectivist account of what counts as an art work, or in this particular case, a work of fashion. If we stick with qualified intentions, as I want to, we'd have to include all of the things that fit the criteria, regardless of whether those things are good or bad.

I think this is a general problem with definitions of the type "X is Y because Z uses it so in a certain context / because Z performs W." - such definitions still don't tell us what X is, and moreover, in order to restrict X from being reduced to any (undesirable) context/performance, they presuppose some normative account of it.

I think this is valid concern. Let me make a couple quick comments. I don't think "X is Y because Z uses it in a certain context" fully captures what I think an appropriate account of what counts as a work of fashion should be. At minimum, it should be something like (and this is very rough) "a particular garment is a work of fashion if and only if it is a work that is intentionally produced in order to adorn the body, is composed of the right kind of physical materials, and is meant to be appreciated as an adornment of the body." Now, granted, this is very rough, but you can see that my definition of what counts as work of fashion is definitely not as simple as "a particular garment is a work of fashion if and only if a fashion designer intends it to be a work of fashion." This latter account, as I think you rightly point out, isn't going to get us very far.

[Patroklus]

I think a lot of people really care.

Remember that even though I'm writing with a lot of conviction, it's still just my opinion.

I think, for the most part, people believe that different art forms or media have different salient properties, and that to really understand particular art works one ought to understand more than just its message, if that can even plausibly be somehow divorced from the packaging.

It's very common for artists to react to the work of others in the same medium and being familiar with the work of other artists in that medium can help you understand a work, especially with older works that predate The Urinal. But it's pretty common for them to react to the work of others in different mediums too, especially with the heavily incestuous art contemporary art world.

It sounds to me like you think the analysis of any particular art work should focus solely on the message of that art work. That seems wrong to me. Surely we care about more than just what the artist was trying to say. We care, for example, how they said it. Furthermore, we might ask why the manner in which they chose to say it was so effective. Would it have been more effective in another art form or medium? Why or why not? I think your example of Duchamp's urinal is interesting, at least in part, for exactly these reasons. If Duchamp was just trying to say something, why didn't he just say it? Why did he decide to use a urinal? These are all questions, I think, that are interesting, and which one can't really answer satisfactorily without appealing to something like the art form or the medium.

I think you misunderstood me a little bit here. "Message" is a loaded word because we're very familiar with work like Dylan's protest songs and the majority of the punk movement whose intentions are very explicit. Art is just a method of communication and sometimes it's just more effective to piss on someone than to tell them they're an asshole. It's funnier to watch too.

Didn't you just argue that the art form or medium doesn't matter? All that matters is what the artist is saying, not how they say it.

To be fair, I was probably too extreme - I mean, you're only going to become a more sophisticated listener of music by listening to a lot of music.

If it matters for the artist, why doesn't it matter for us?

It's especially important for the artist because it's the only way they can really learn to use their medium.

[Patroklus]

I think this is valid concern. Let me make a couple quick comments. I don't think "X is Y because Z uses it in a certain context" fully captures what I think an appropriate account of what counts as a work of fashion should be. At minimum, it should be something like (and this is very rough) "a particular garment is a work of fashion if and only if it is a work that is intentionally produced in order to adorn the body, is composed of the right kind of physical materials, and is meant to be appreciated as an adornment of the body."

Jeans were only meant to be durable work pants. Were the first pairs of proto-Levi's fashion, or did they become fashion in after World War II?

[Pumpfish]

"a particular garment is a work of fashion if and only if it is a work that is intentionally produced in order to adorn the body, is composed of the right kind of physical materials, and is meant to be appreciated as an adornment of the body." .

OK, lets start with this, AP, and see if we can finish the job...

garment, check

intentionally produced, check

adorn - is this too narrow? Do we lose functional garments which are fashion?

right kind of physical materials - no, this is not helpful, I don't think you need to qualify or even reference this. (Plus by the time you satisify the CCP sect you have human hair and fibreglass on the approved list!)

meant to be appreciated - still on the old "intentionalist" side of the deal. Why not let the other side do the appreciation. Would "and is appreciated by a fashion literate audience" round out the definition.

If that nails the definition, maybe we can discuss whether fashion is art or applied art.

[Analytic Philosopher]

It's very common for artists to react to the work of others in the same medium and being familiar with the work of other artists in that medium can help you understand a work, especially with older works that predate The Urinal. But it's pretty common for them to react to the work of others in different mediums too, especially with the heavily incestuous art contemporary art world.

This is all very true, but I'm not quite sure I see what the point is. We might say, for example, that David Cronenberg's film Naked Lunch is reacting to William S. Burroughs's book Naked Lunch. What does that have to do with the claim that, say, to properly evaluate or explain particular aspects of both works, we'd have to appeal to the respective art forms or media of the two works?

It's especially important for the artist because it's the only way they can really learn to use their medium.

Let me try asking the same kind of question that I asked earlier in a different way. If, as you say, it's important for the artist to learn how to use their medium or work within their art form, then why isn't it just as important for the patron to learn how to, say, appreciate works in a particular medium? Or do you contend that there is no relevant difference in appreciating, say, opera and fashion?

Perhaps an appeal to an actual example will more clearly illustrate what I mean. I'm going to borrow an example that Andrew Kania writes about in his article "What is Memento? Ontology and Interpretation in Mainstream Film." (I'm going to assume that you have seen the film, though maybe that's a bit of a dangerous assumption.) In his article, Kania presents two possible "endings" to the film, which coincide with the narratives presented by Leonard, the protagonist, and Teddy, the man whom Leonard kills. Kania argues that within the movie proper, there is not enough information to warrant accepting one of the "endings" over the other. Both are equally possible. However, Kania also points out that there seems to be some secondary information, in the form of a website for the film, interviews with the director, and so on, which perhaps pushes the evidence in favor of Leonard's story. Now, the question is, is it appropriate to bring in that evidence? Kania thinks the answer to this question depends on what medium Memento is properly an example of. If Memento is properly a mainstream film, then he thinks that the secondary information is impermissible, because then the film becomes not a mainstream film, but some sort of mixed-media art work. However, if the film is a mixed-media art work, then it seems like that secondary information might be permissible. Now, I'm skipping over some detailed argumentation, but the general conclusion is that the very meaning of the film changes based on which medium it is properly in. Now, granted, there is definitely room to argue here, but I just wanted to show you a concrete example where it just doesn't make sense to say that the medium doesn't matter, or that all that matters is what the artist was trying to communicate.*

* Part of Kania's argument, if I understand it correctly, is a rejection of actual intentionalism, which is the thesis that you seem to be defending when you argue that what matters is what the artist was trying to say. Instead, he argues for some sort of hypothetical intentionalism, which is the thesis that the meaning of an art work is something like what an ideal audience would think the work was about after having seen it.

[Analytic Philosopher]

Jeans were only meant to be durable work pants. Were the first pairs of proto-Levi's fashion, or did they become fashion in after World War II?

These are exactly the kinds of cases that are going to test any definition of an art form or a medium. Just to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly, you're putting forth an example of something, the very first Levi Jeans, that you think were not produced with the intention of being appreciated as an adornment of the body. Instead, they were intended to be appreciated as a high quality work tool. Is that correct? If it is, then I think my answer to the scenario posed would be that no, the very first Levi's were not a work of fashion. This seems okay to me. After all, not all pieces of clothing are works of fashion, right? Whatever the early hominids wore for protection from the elements might be considered clothing, but it certainly wouldn't be considered fashion. I think it's safe to say, however, that although the very first Levi's may not have been works of fashion, the Levi's of today do seem to be works of fashion.

Now, this is all based on a definition that I don't actually endorse, but, still, everything above seems plausible to me. For similar examples in other art forms or media, consider something like a musician practicing her scales before a concert. Is the musician's playing of the musical scales a musical work? I don't think so, for the same reasons I gave above.

[Analytic Philosopher]

Adorn - is this too narrow? Do we lose functional garments which are fashion?

I don't think so. At least that wasn't my intention in formulating that condition. I just didn't want to use the word "wear," because I think it might be ambiguous as to whether or not people "wear" certain kinds of things that we label as clothing or garments.

Right kind of physical materials - no, this is not helpful, I don't think you need to qualify or even reference this. (Plus by the time you satisify the CCP sect you have human hair and fibreglass on the approved list!)

Again, this is probably just me not formulating my example of a definition very well. I don't see why hair or fiberglass couldn't be the the right kind of physical material. An idea, however, is not the right kind of physical material. An idea cannot be a work of fashion. Neither can a fear. Or any other mental state. This is what I had in mind with this condition.

Why not let the other side do the appreciation. Would "and is appreciated by a fashion literate audience" round out the definition.

I'm not sure I understand. The other side is doing the appreciation. It's just that the content of its appreciation doesn't matter. What matters is that the designer intends for the garment to be appreciated as an adornment of the body. If the designer only intends for her garment to be appreciated as a beer koozie, for example, then it wouldn't be a work of fashion.

If that nails the definition, maybe we can discuss whether fashion is art or applied art.

This is an interesting question. What do you have in mind when you make a distinction between art and applied art?

[genevieveryoko]

i'd love to read it, merz - what goes on in the textile industry has been of interest to me for some time now

Is there a flaw at the heart of "fashion"?

what i see to be the main flaw, not with fashion itself, but with the industry is the seasonal system (that is practically written in stone) of showing and releasing new collections. i can't even begin to imagine how much work it must be for one person to produce at least 2-4 and perhaps even more collections a year...is it such a good idea, or even realistic, for fashion to move at this pace?

perhaps someone who knows a little more about the history of this system could shed some light on this.

also, why can't fashion have a shelf life longer than 6 months? i don't tire of garments i love after only 6 months...and sometimes it may take me a year to decide whether or not i even want something.

Can you have enduring "fashion" or is obsolescence inherent?

truly good fashion endures...it's influence lives on whether or not it's actually worn anymore

inherent obsolescence is fast fashion...when many people say 'fashion' they actually mean fast fashion

If "new" matters in fashion, is it inevitable that anything not "new" is devalued?

no - sometimes we even value it more when a designer does re-releases and classics rather than the empty space-filler of an uninspired 'new' collection

[Patroklus]

This is all very true, but I'm not quite sure I see what the point is. We might say, for example, that David Cronenberg's film Naked Lunch is reacting to William S. Burroughs's book Naked Lunch. What does that have to do with the claim that, say, to properly evaluate or explain particular aspects of both works, we'd have to appeal to the respective art forms or media of the two works?

You're right.

Let me try asking the same kind of question that I asked earlier in a different way. If, as you say, it's important for the artist to learn how to use their medium or work within their art form, then why isn't it just as important for the patron to learn how to, say, appreciate works in a particular medium? Or do you contend that there is no relevant difference in appreciating, say, opera and fashion?

I think the runway can be a very similar performance to an opera, but that's besides the point. I got ahead of myself in ignoring the medium; remember that my original statement was just that I wasn't too concerned with creating a very specific definition of fashion because I already define fashion as any form of communication using clothing - whether it's an explicit thing like a club jacket or an implicit thing like a shemagh. Even though the institutionalized fashion industry is relatively new, the concept is nearly as old as clothing and I find the definition pretty handy and all inclusive.

Perhaps an appeal to an actual example will more clearly illustrate what I mean. I'm going to borrow an example that Andrew Kania writes about in his article "What is Memento? Ontology and Interpretation in Mainstream Film." (I'm going to assume that you have seen the film, though maybe that's a bit of a dangerous assumption.) In his article, Kania presents two possible "endings" to the film, which coincide with the narratives presented by Leonard, the protagonist, and Teddy, the man whom Leonard kills. Kania argues that within the movie proper, there is not enough information to warrant accepting one of the "endings" over the other. Both are equally possible. However, Kania also points out that there seems to be some secondary information, in the form of a website for the film, interviews with the director, and so on, which perhaps pushes the evidence in favor of Leonard's story. Now, the question is, is it appropriate to bring in that evidence? Kania thinks the answer to this question depends on what medium Memento is properly an example of. If Memento is properly a mainstream film, then he thinks that the secondary information is impermissible, because then the film becomes not a mainstream film, but some sort of mixed-media art work. However, if the film is a mixed-media art work, then it seems like that secondary information might be permissible. Now, I'm skipping over some detailed argumentation, but the general conclusion is that the very meaning of the film changes based on which medium it is properly in. Now, granted, there is definitely room to argue here, but I just wanted to show you a concrete example where it just doesn't make sense to say that the medium doesn't matter, or that all that matters is what the artist was trying to communicate.*

I'm not equipped to comment on Memento and the article, but I will say that you can react to any piece of art at any point in time - I stop reading books and ignore pieces in art galleries all the time. In this case you should just be prepared to reconsider your initial reaction as you learn more about the artist and his intentions. It doesn't totally invalidate your initial reaction either though, in the same way that it's okay to misunderstand someone in conversation and ask them to clarify. Communication is inherently emergent, especially when art starts to cross cultural and subcultural borders.

* Part of Kania's argument, if I understand it correctly, is a rejection of actual intentionalism, which is the thesis that you seem to be defending when you argue that what matters is what the artist was trying to say. Instead, he argues for some sort of hypothetical intentionalism, which is the thesis that the meaning of an art work is something like what an ideal audience would think the work was about after having seen it.

Maybe it's too PC, but any reaction is legitimate. You can say that The Man "didn't get" punk music back when it was new, but at the same time I'm pretty sure the punks didn't want Him to, so everything came out as planned. But I'm sure a lot of older people dug it, and identified with it to some extent in spite of not being the target or ideal audience for it and in spite of probably not completely understanding it.

These are exactly the kinds of cases that are going to test any definition of an art form or a medium. Just to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly, you're putting forth an example of something, the very first Levi Jeans, that you think were not produced with the intention of being appreciated as an adornment of the body. Instead, they were intended to be appreciated as a high quality work tool. Is that correct? If it is, then I think my answer to the scenario posed would be that no, the very first Levi's were not a work of fashion. This seems okay to me. After all, not all pieces of clothing are works of fashion, right? Whatever the early hominids wore for protection from the elements might be considered clothing, but it certainly wouldn't be considered fashion. I think it's safe to say, however, that although the very first Levi's may not have been works of fashion, the Levi's of today do seem to be works of fashion.

That's fair. I feel that Levi's were always fashion. The first pairs told everyone exactly what you did for a living, and it wasn't long before cowboys and cowboy wannabes adopted them as a uniform. Then rockers and motorcycle riders, and from there a succession of subcultures until they became a mainstream and wholly fashionable garment.

Now, this is all based on a definition that I don't actually endorse, but, still, everything above seems plausible to me. For similar examples in other art forms or media, consider something like a musician practicing her scales before a concert. Is the musician's playing of the musical scales a musical work? I don't think so, for the same reasons I gave above.

It is a musical form, it's just not very expressive or interesting to hear.

[Patroklus]

i think a significant difference there is that unlike the case with many artistic media, sartorial matters differ greatly in the nature of the relationship between the creator and the consumer. though always up to interpretation of the consumer, very rarely does any other sort of art enter into direct relationship with the consumer's sense of self or identity, relationship with their space..etc

There's some similarity with fashion and the works of artists like Andy Warhol, which were reprinted and sold endlessly. Even more traditional art still generally relies on appealing to someone enough for them to buy it and so the artist can make a living, but because most traditional arts only rely on being sold once the effect is just distorted. The other thing is that clothing labels generally have a much higher level of risk, because even niche labels have hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars circulating back and forth between them, their contractors, and the stores they sell to. A painter can get pretty vulgar. But if I made a giant wearable penis, it's not that I wouldn't sell any so much as I wouldn't sell enough to stay in business, unless I made them out of latex and included ball gags.

still forthcoming with a pile of writing for all of y'all. some subjects i'm touching upon have been brought up previously, with the stranger bits of the fashion establishment looked at in detail (trend forecasting and the way fabric suppliers buy into those reports, etc..)

I've always wondered how much trend reports are self-fulfilling; they're certainly pretty accurate, but I don't think it's possible to document whether it's because they're precogniscient or because everyone listens to them without simultaneously being employed at every single design firm in every field ever.

I have access to trend reports, and admittedly I find a lot of them pretty fucking insipid.

[Patroklus]

with regard to the trend reports though, someone once detailed interesting things about the way material suppliers treat trend forecasts in a way resembling commodity futures. this places a question of who truly drives the cycle of change in today's fashion establishment and who benefits the most from it. in theory that would be everyone, as they all get to keep their jobs.

Most of the trend reports I had access to were pretty insipid; a bunch of croquis and flats of what designers are supposed to be making that season. A few were actually pretty creative, and focused on more abstract inspirations like mud (you heard me) and found sculpture. I'm sure you're aware of that; this is to clarify for people who aren't.

[Patroklus]

That's not very specific. What about this current economic crisis demonstrates shortcomings in the capitalist system?

I'm pretty disappointed that no one took me up on this discussion. For what it's worth I'm actually a left-leaning Keynesian, because there's some things that are more important to me than optimal economic efficiency. At the same time I feel that there's some misconceptions about the market system here, and I'm worried that someone might know something juicy and contradictory that I hadn't considered before.

As far as the current economic crisis goes, it's not the result of a failure of any particular economic model except for fiat currency. It's the result of a very large group of people who had failed to understand basic arithmetic and was exacerbated by a very powerful group of people who saw an opportunity to orchestrate the grandest heist in history.