^1) It is not analogous. To call "fashion" "art" is merely to switch the category of the object. What we are talking about here are possible frameworks for describing, analyzing, and interpreting the object. The "logic" you have employed here implies that fashion isn't worthy of intellectual treatment because it isn't art. Which is exactly the kind of archaic academic conservatism that Valerie Steele (to take someone you supposedly respect) founded her career in opposition to.
2) I don't understand what you are saying here at all. Philosophy, Anthropology, Semiology, Psychology, Sociology, etc. can take almost anything as their object....they are first and foremost types of perspectives (or approaches), not disciplinary boxes filled pre-determined "topics" to be studied. Why should fashion be exempt? And why on earth is "cultural studies," the magic box that fashion fits into?
2) I don't understand what you are saying here at all. Philosophy, Anthropology, Semiology, Psychology, Sociology, etc. can take almost anything as their object....they are first and foremost types of perspectives (or approaches), not disciplinary boxes filled pre-determined "topics" to be studied. Why should fashion be exempt? And why on earth is "cultural studies," the magic box that fashion fits into?
Comment