Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Philosophical topics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Analytic Philosopher
    Junior Member
    • Aug 2011
    • 19

    #61
    Tweeds, your post is very interesting. I'm going to focus, for now anyway, just on the bits relevant to the question of what a work of fashion is, since that's what I've been concerned with throughout this thread. I'll probably come back and address the other points at a later point, though.

    Originally posted by tweeds View Post
    So the original intention (to put it crudely) of the object-creator could well have been to create a piece of non-Fashion, a piece of clothing. But the images and utterances deform, post hoc, the intention of the creator.

    We might argue, therefore, that it is this deformation after the event that produces the Fashion-object.
    This is probably revealing my biases more than anything else, but I'm extremely reluctant to take works of art away from artists. It's one thing to say that there may be non-art works that figure heavily into aesthetic discourse, but it's quite another to say that anything that figures heavily into aesthetic discourse is a work of art, which is what the view you've presented seems to commit us to.

    More importantly, however, I just don't see the advantage of moving to an account like the one that you've advanced here. I'm not sure if you actually endorse the account you've presented or not, but if you do, then what do you think the advantages of it are? Both you (I think) and Rilu seem to be worried that there may be counterexamples to my (admittedly tentative) definition of what a work of fashion is, and that because of this we may have to take another approach to it, and I have no problem with this, but I see no reason to do so until an actual compelling counterexample is offered. The Levi's example, if it is the one that everyone is going to continue sticking to, is going to need to be majorly fleshed out before we can see if it's really as worrisome as it first seems.

    Comment

    • Analytic Philosopher
      Junior Member
      • Aug 2011
      • 19

      #62
      Originally posted by rilu
      this was also my point in the discussion with AP a while back on the definition of fashion and the idea of a garment being made to "adorn" the body... (btw, AP, I'm sorry i've never come back to that in detail, but maybe your broader formulation fits this option as well...)
      I would just like to point out, in case there is any confusion, that I absolutely agree with Merz's claim that works of fashion exist to be worn. This, I think, is just another way of saying that works of fashion are works that are, in part, intentionally created to be worn or to adorn the body or something along those lines--I have a feeling that the problem here might simply be my choice of language, and that we're actually in agreement. I'm not convinced, however, that how works of fashion are worn, provided that they are worn, is at all relevant to whether or not they are works of fashion.

      On that note, however, I have to get back to doing some work. I'll try to find some more time later tonight or tomorrow to respond to some of the other posts that I have skipped. A lot of interesting ideas here.

      Comment

      • Patroklus
        Banned
        • Feb 2011
        • 1675

        #63
        Originally posted by Analytic Philosopher View Post
        On your first point, I agree--to an extent. You're certainly free to subjectively respond to a work in any way you want. However, I'm not sure I agree that an act like burning a work of art is a reaction of the same kind that I've been assuming so far, and I do think you're going to run into problems if you think burning works of art is perfectly legitimate. The desire to burn a work of art for one reason or another is perfectly legitimate. Actually doing so, not so much.
        How do you feel about Lang tearing up his garment archives?

        I see no reason, however, to then move from that and say that my subjective interpretation of "Yellow Submarine" is in any way a legitimate interpretation of the work itself. Works of art, I take it, have meanings, but that doesn't mean that they can mean anything. Maybe this is what you had in mind when you said that interpretations have to be relevant in some sense, but if that's the case, then I think you ought to refrain from saying things like "any interpretation is legitimate," because the qualification is just too big to go unstated.
        A good example of legitimate "mis"interpretation is art crossing from one culture to another. The swastika is a prime example as a design element. If some American saw one of those old Japanese road maps with Buddhist temples marked as swastikas and became upset, it's a legitimate reaction even though it's very ethnocentric to an educated observer.

        I can maybe see the argument with regards to musical scales, but I constructed my example of the accidental painting with the explicit assumption that there was no intentionality involved. The paint just accidentally landed on the canvas. Even with the musical scales example, however, it's not going to be that cut and dry. I take it that when musicians play the musical scales, they play them with the intention of practicing or warming up for their performance, not with the intention of having them be heard as a work of music (I'm obviously ignoring the task of defining music here). As I write this, I realize that perhaps a musical example wasn't the best choice, as music is notoriously difficult. But I don't think that anything really rides on this particular example.

        Tweeds, I think I remember you saying that you had a music background. Do you have any thoughts here?
        Musical scales are music. they aren't just the foundation of many melodies and solos, they're used verbatim in music all the time. Starting at 2:52 in this video Django Reinhardt plays a chromatic scale - he literally just hits every note from the bottom to the top of his guitar, but it's very pretty to hear.

        Comment

        • tweeds
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2006
          • 246

          #64
          Originally posted by Patroklus View Post
          How do you feel about Lang tearing up his garment archives?
          Originally posted by tweeds View Post
          I dunno, it's not quite on the level of Ai Weiwei smashing and dipping ancient Chinese ceramics, is it?
          More serious responses later.
          SITE | TWITTER

          Comment

          • Carcass
            Senior Member
            • May 2010
            • 178

            #65
            I think that it is possible to learn what comprises the sz-aesthetic (I hate to call it this, but it is what it is,) but if someone doesn't feel how what they're wearing suggests they feel, they're going to look as awkward as if they had no idea what the sz-aesthetic was. This comes down to whether or not you feel very "sz." It seems to me like most of the prominent members who have shaped the sz-aesthetic are realists (not pessimists, for the most part,) skeptics, have keen eyes for detail and are fairly humble about it. I find these qualities to be some of the best in people, but most fashion centers today would probably inspire people to be the opposite. The sz-er sees this (perhaps subconsciously) and tries to dissociate his- or herself from it. Assuming he or she still would like to pursue fashion, this leads the sz-er down a dark tunnel. If he or she walk far enough down the tunnel, the sz-er might develop night vision, and see a few others who see the world in a similar way. This may be a gross generalization and even a complete misinterpretation, but many contributors here seem to have an eye for arts that to me evoke nostalgia, sadness, rage, insanity, etc. I think this comes through in the way they dress for one and surely in other ways. We may all be generally happy people, but we're seeking exclusivity: to be seen and sought as someone who sees the world a little differently. Coming back to my point, if you don't feel very sz, you're sure as hell not going to look very sz.

            Sorry for the incoherent mess. Hopefully, it makes a little sense to some.

            Comment

            • Liquid
              Member
              • Jul 2009
              • 77

              #66
              I liked the first page of this thread but a lot of problems come about defining these big terms like "art". For the sake of discussion, there's a lot to gain by just looking at real world case by case scenarios.

              For example, I bring charges of planned obsolescence against fashion and garment design. I can now define who I am accusing and for what, by example. The examples:

              -The capitalist. Mass produced chains sold at Macy's. The intent of these designers is simply to make money, and planning obsolescence with their marketing and product helps their intention. Few people here would associate these at all with fashion or design.

              -The artisanal designer. Like Luca or an old-world tailor or something. Here the designer is a bit like an engineer, designing for quality. Designing for function. To make what common-sense makes sense for a person to wear, and to make it in the best way, and to the highest standard.

              -The "fashion" designer. Like Rick. Here the designer uses design as a medium to an end of some sort of communication. Ideally it may be something like "to reflect the zeitgeist". However it may just also be some personal message of the designer unrelated to the zeitgeist; just as well.

              No designer falls into just 1 of those aspects (capitalist/artisan/fashion) of course, they are always a bit of a mix, but ultimately a designer holds one in priority to the others.

              Seasonal collections are a big hit to the credibility of fashion/design.
              For fashion, the intent is to communicate. A designer should only release garments when he has something to say, and only when he has mastered the medium of design to his satisfaction. The only reason to release another collection would be if a new mastery of design was achieved, thereby communicating the message clearer. Or if there is a new message to say.

              However a lot of designers, even ones we like, have just one big message. It's more of a "mood" than a message, and they repeat it every 6 months, with no new mastery of design. Or if they are aiming at expressing the zeitgeist, does the zeitgeist keep changing every fall and spring?
              What about designers needing to make money to pursue design? Yes that's true, but then can we admit that? That seasonal collections are just a bourgeois circus? Can we embrace that, that us, SZ-ers, the avant-guard, on the frontlines of defending fashion from consumerism, contribute to a bourgeois circus?

              The same can be said about hardcore "artisan" design. Garments aren't like microchips that can double in transistors every 6 months. If a designer can replace his best work every 6 months, he is either immensely inspired, or he is planning obsolescence.

              A lot of the responsibility falls on us. It is our responsibility to want a garment when we want it. Be it because it communicates the message of the zeitgeist, or it communicates the message of "bad-ass", or it will be great work wear. Whatever the reason, we must want it authentically. Why do we keep buying? Why do we sell and buy? Do we keep changing our criteria of what we want. Or is the bourgeois circus changing our criteria of what we want?
              Clothes make the man. Naked people have little to no influence on society. -MT

              Comment

              • Patroklus
                Banned
                • Feb 2011
                • 1675

                #67
                Why are periodic fashion shows antiartistic but periodic art shows (presumably) aren't?

                Comment

                • Liquid
                  Member
                  • Jul 2009
                  • 77

                  #68
                  Originally posted by Patroklus View Post
                  Why are periodic fashion shows antiartistic but periodic art shows (presumably) aren't?
                  I don't follow the art scene but from the art I've seen artists tend to be inspired with a project, a message and a means to convey it, and they work on it, and when it is ready they release it. The intention is pure.

                  Fashion shows are not released upon the designer's inspiration, but upon a runway deadline. The intention is tainted by the deadline.
                  Clothes make the man. Naked people have little to no influence on society. -MT

                  Comment

                  • Patroklus
                    Banned
                    • Feb 2011
                    • 1675

                    #69
                    You're comparing freelance artists to salaried designers. Lots of really creative stuff is made by dudes working for a paycheck and bound to a strict contract to release their work for someone's profit.

                    Jimi Hendrix comes to mind.

                    Comment

                    • Patroklus
                      Banned
                      • Feb 2011
                      • 1675

                      #70
                      boho = bohemian. boho chic = "dressing the way that i'm pretty sure hippie artists do"
                      "chic" is probably the most terrible word in the English language. I'd rather hear the epithet soaked ramblings of a Grand Wizard.

                      Comment

                      • Patroklus
                        Banned
                        • Feb 2011
                        • 1675

                        #71
                        Originally posted by Chilton0326
                        I really think life is inherently fair, and that people everywhere are given the same trials and tribulations that they have to overcome or fall victim to... and if some countries seem always to be richer and have more of this or more of that, it just proves that material stuff (in and of itself) doesn't matter much in life.
                        I was going to post a picture of starving African children, but it seemed too obvious.

                        Comment

                        • Mail-Moth
                          Senior Member
                          • Mar 2009
                          • 1448

                          #72
                          Originally posted by Chilton0326
                          I do not buy the items I buy because I am consciously avoiding the work produced from sweatshops. I buy the items I buy because they appeal to me. I see the former, frankly, as a sort of self-imposed censorship.
                          You make it sound like a very bad thing, you know.
                          I can see a hat, I can see a cat,
                          I can see a man with a baseball bat.

                          Comment

                          • Mail-Moth
                            Senior Member
                            • Mar 2009
                            • 1448

                            #73
                            If I understand you correctly :
                            1. Mankind has always been the same intricate blend of good and evil.
                            2. You come to discover this truth when you contemplate the deeds of mankind with an open mind.
                            3. Let's visit a nike flagship-store and buy a pair of dunk-high to take our share of the original sin and thus be enlightened ?

                            Edit : your edit has made your answer a little less blurry. And polemic. However, and even though I certainly understand the utility of art as an exploration of the human mind in all its intricate nature, I still don't see it as a sufficient reason not to take the risk of an ethical position. Rather the contrary, in fact.
                            Last edited by Mail-Moth; 10-29-2011, 06:19 AM.
                            I can see a hat, I can see a cat,
                            I can see a man with a baseball bat.

                            Comment

                            • BSR
                              Senior Member
                              • Aug 2008
                              • 1562

                              #74
                              Originally posted by Chilton0326
                              Tadeusz Borowski's "This Way to the Gas Ladies and Gentleman" is a secular book that greatly influenced how I see humanity. Gustave Flaubert's "Bouvard et Pecuchet" is another.

                              so that you decided to adapt it in real life on SZ with patroklus right?
                              pix

                              Originally posted by Fuuma
                              Fuck you and your viewpoint, I hate this depoliticized environment where every opinion should be respected, no matter how moronic. My avatar was chosen just for you, die in a ditch fucker.

                              Comment

                              • Mail-Moth
                                Senior Member
                                • Mar 2009
                                • 1448

                                #75
                                Originally posted by Chilton0326
                                Tadeusz Borowski's "This Way to the Gas Ladies and Gentleman" is a secular book that greatly influenced how I see humanity. Gustave Flaubert's "Bouvard et Pecuchet" is another.

                                The latter speaks of the inability to really know any subject well. The former simply depicts his fellow victims in the concentration camp as who they were -- human -- and how, when you're treated inhumanely, you often begin to do inhumane things.
                                I didn't read the first one of the books you're refering to, but your interpretation of Bouvard et Pécuchet sounds rather flawed to me. You seem to disregard the fact that his main characters are not your average scientists or philosophers. They're thick. They're created after Flaubert's contemporaries blind faith in scientist discourses they don't understand and yet keep trotting out as some modern catechism. It is the Encyclopédie in the hands of the village idiots - not a general judgement on the possibility of knowledge.

                                As for your last sentence, do you really need books to get that ? You just need to live amongst people. It seems to me that you're giving into what causes Bouvard and Pécuchet's succession of misunderstandings and fails then.

                                Edit : BSR beat me to it.
                                I can see a hat, I can see a cat,
                                I can see a man with a baseball bat.

                                Comment

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