The pricing is crazy/justified thread

[zamb]

Nice to hear from you in a while, Eat Me. I just wanted to interject though, this is kind of a strange thing to say, aren't our favorite designers artists? I think you're mixing up two very different spheres of definition- "fashion designer" is a profession, "artist" is a way of being.

It would be nice if you could explain this, and how did you come to such a perspective/ conclusion?...............

All is fine, I like to discuss :).

In my opinion, an artist is someone who ultimately can just not give a shit about anything, like painting something that only he understands and cares about, and then if someone gets it and starts promoting - great, if not - nothing changes, he will just go on creating for the sake of expressing. With a designer it's not like that. They/we produce the stuff that is born out of our imagination, and is our view (for the most part), yes, but it is ultimately created to be consumed by somebody. Not maybe a lot of people, not a majority, but SOMEBODY. Otherwise you'll inevitably fold and that's going to be the end of your story.

It's difficult to argue, and there sure are elements of both artistry and commercial creativity in fashion, but ultimately I don't think a fashion designer is an artist, when he creates a collection. i see him as a commercial creative.

I mean, there are no designers (that I know of) who keep producing and sewing their collections if no one is buying them. They might stay true to their views, but they adapt.

I might be wrong though, I'm still not completely set on this topic.

Is there any artist, who create works that they are not interested in being seen (and ultimately acquired) by the Public?
There is no one, absolutely no one who creates without giving a "S**T" about anything..............unless you are super rich or being funded by someone, as an artist you still have to buy materials, you still have to pay rent, you still have to eat etc.., all of those things have a cost attached to them and you had better have a source of income to pay for them or else you will fold just like the designer who sells nothing, or at least not enough to cover his incurred expenses.
The only difference I see between the Fashion Designer and the "Artist' is that the designer's work has a shorter shelf life and a different end use than that of the artist. The value of artist's work generally increases with the rise of his profile, but in the end they are both seeking validation, financial reward and the consumption of their work.....................visual consumption of an artist's work is still consumption, only of a different form

[Fade to Black]

It would be nice if you could explain this, and how did you come to such a perspective/ conclusion?..............

i'd like to re-read and digest over the 2nd and lengthier part of your post a bit down the line, but why is Beau's statement so contestable? It seems like a pretty sound and transparent truism. 'artist' is a very blanket word, it's barely above 'person' in the hierarchy of detail imo.

[zamb]

i'd like to re-read and digest over the 2nd and lengthier part of your post a bit down the line, but why is Beau's statement so contestable? It seems like a pretty sound and transparent truism. 'artist' is a very blanket word, it's barely above 'person' in the hierarchy of detail imo.

I'm not really contesting his position.............at least not yet, but giving him a chance to explain better what he means by it.
I dont see why there needs to be this disconnect/ distinction between artist and fashion designer..............the word artist has taken on some kind of glorified aura in our society which I certainly dont see it warranting.................I am a Fashion designer and its a "way of being" for me...............albeit not my only way of being.............

[eat me]

Is there any artist, who create works that they are not interested in being seen (and ultimately acquired) by the Public?
There is no one, absolutely no one who creates without giving a "S**T" about anything..............unless you are super rich or being funded by someone, as an artist you still have to buy materials, you still have to pay rent, you still have to eat etc.., <...>

zamb, I believe there is. Sure, they have to live on something. But an artist can get materials from other places rather than the shop (paint on a wall with berry-juice, get a rock and break a picture into it, or burn on a piece of wood, there can be countless examples).

What I meant is, that while the overwhelming majority of artists need to support themselves through selling/grants, at least there is a possibility, if the expression is all that matters to you, to create out of almost nothing. And not give a crap whether someone likes it or not. With a designer there is no such option.

Ultimately, there isn't that much difference between the two, and none is better than the other, but there is some difference.

[zamb]

zamb, I believe there is. Sure, they have to live on something. But an artist can get materials from other places rather than the shop (paint on a wall with berry-juice, get a rock and break a picture into it, or burn on a piece of wood, there can be countless examples).

What I meant is, that while the overwhelming majority of artists need to support themselves through selling/grants, at least there is a possibility, if the expression is all that matters to you, to create out of almost nothing. And not give a crap whether someone likes it or not. With a designer there is no such option.

Ultimately, there isn't that much difference between the two, and none is better than the other, but there is some difference.

I am challenging you to break with conventional thinking, asd a believe there are a wealth of designers who have proven that this is not necessarily the case,

your great Countryman ( I am assuming you are born/from England?)
John Galliano once created an entire collection out of recycled newspaper because he couldn't afford the money to buy Fabric. I dont know if it was PR stunt or whatever but that's what he did..........ultimately got him the Job at Givenchy,

Margiela has shown with his artisanal line that one can create items out of materials that are considered cast off, etc. these materials are from your traditional fabric store/ fabric mill. the only difference is that because fashion by nature is a "volume" business then its always better to acquire ones materials from a source where there is a consistent supply.

If many designers were thinking like artists, with the desire and intent to use unconventional materials it would surely push fashion a whole lot further.
The significance is that Artists have a free rein in this area because there creations are not worn on a body but viewed, in this way no one looks absurd or ridiculous in their creation. Its fine to have a visually arresting object in ones home/ office etc. but wear it and you are viewed as some kind of clown.........

[eat me]

zamb, these examples that you gave - it's Galliano the artist for me. Not Galliano the designer.

I see what you mean though, it's just when a designer creates something like this, in my view, that's him being an artist at that particular moment.

Perhaps, in the end, you could argue that then it's the same. But I still feel like there's a difference. Which by no means suggests that you should always think within the frame of being a designer/artist, not designer&artist.

ps - no, I have a Soviet background, I wasn't born here :).

[BeauIXI]

It would be nice if you could explain this, and how did you come to such a perspective/ conclusion?...............

I would argue that being a fashion designer is a lifestyle, maybe, or a career, certainly a way of being, yes, as you say, but not a way of looking at things in the exact same respect as an artist in the purest sense of the word does.

Is there any artist, who create works that they are not interested in being seen (and ultimately acquired) by the Public?

Perhaps you aren't aware of the story of the great Franz Kafka? There are many artists who don't/didn't care to have their work publicly displayed.

[Faust]

eat_me, your recent posts betray your age and naivette. good luck to you, my friend, i hope life will take it easy on you.

[eat me]

Faust, care to expand?

[whitney]

age doesn't always go hand in hand with naiveness--however i do agree with faust;

what defines an artist or designer..i really am interested--i always thought that a designer designs something that is more of function and an artist makes something that is more visual and free form; not necessarily *needed* but often eye appeasing and appreciated.

[diamonds]

i always thought that a designer designs something that is more of function and an artist makes something that is more visual and free form; not necessarily *needed* but often eye appeasing and appreciated.

i think this is a black and white way to look at it... but that is my understanding as well.

[BeauIXI]

Ok, let's make two lists, one will be filled with designers we feel are "designers" and the other with those we consider to be "artists".


See how little sense that makes?

I don't think we're delving far enough into this, but I also don't know if it's entirely necessary.

This is a very important facet...

If many designers were thinking like artists, with the desire and intent to use unconventional materials it would surely push fashion a whole lot further.
The significance is that Artists have a free rein in this area because there creations are not worn on a body but viewed, in this way no one looks absurd or ridiculous in their creation. Its fine to have a visually arresting object in ones home/ office etc. but wear it and you are viewed as some kind of clown.........

[Heirloom]

there's an old saying that a designer answers questions and solves problems, while an artist asks questions and create problems. If this is the case, then it's a very artistic forum we're on.

[Fade to Black]

... while an artist asks questions and create problems. If this is the case, then it's a very artistic forum we're on.

lmao but also

lately i've grown fond of the old-man style of constant nagging and argument raising, the making a snowballing something out of a neeny nothing. Like a couple that's been married for long, far too long.

[Faust]

Faust, care to expand?

No, not really.