The pricing is crazy/justified thread

[endorphinz]

i think a designer needs to be an artist,on some level, but an artist doesn't necessarily need to be a designer.

i believe the questions being raised in this thread have to do with the commerciality of both. artists and designers can create for the pure joy of creation; and, both can work with an ultimate goal of making $$$....and either way, it's all good....

[Faust]

art is commerce. it is the biggest unregulated speculative market after the drug trade. anyone who maintains that today an artist can maintain integrity and complete creative control is naive, I think. bohemia is dead.

[endorphinz]

^ i agree....if the goal is to be commercial. however, there are some people who just love to create and never have intentions of selling their work.

[eat me]

art is commerce. it is the biggest unregulated speculative market after the drug trade. anyone who maintains that today an artist can maintain integrity and complete creative control is naive, I think. bohemia is dead.

Oh, well that sort of explains your comment. I don't think you're right though. Life hasn't ever been easy on me, but I have people that I know that prove the opposite of what you saying. If keeping an open mind is a sign of youth, then so be it.

[Faust]

/\ Of course, so be it!!! I don't advocate instant wisdom. I am all for striving, erring, defying!

endorphinz, "those who just like to create" and art are two different things. art, at least the way i see it, exists in a social context. it has to have a social meaning or it fails as art. you can create fantastic copies of mona lisa, but who cares?

[Sombre]

Cross-posted from the Silent by Damir Doma thread. I didn't want to continue this discussion in that thread, and this one seemed like the best place.

My main problem with chain stores (and let's face it, Uniqlo is the single bright spot among them) is not that they produce cheap shit per se, but other, socioeconomic problems. Many people don't have money, and that doesn't mean that they should be banished to Kohl's. My problem is that the ostensible purpose of these stores - making fashion affordable - is often overshadowed by the real purpose - driving consumerism. There are people who buy stuff from there every week, then throw it out, sometimes with tags still on them, and they don't feel bad about it. Then come sustainability problems. Then sweatshop problems. Another problem is more of a philosophical nature, having a relationship with material things that surround you, caring for them. Try throwing out a $1,000 coat - not so easy; you cherish it more, and there is something good about that.

I have a feeling (maybe more of a hope) that those people do not represent the typical chain store customer. It's like people here who buy an expensive garment, wear it twice, then sell it in the Classifieds. Practically, the only difference is that they're not throwing the clothes out. Theoretically, there's no difference at all. Or, on another token, "fashionistas" who have to have the latest Balmain for no other reason than it being trendy. The same pattern can be found in almost any industry at any level. The problem is not with chain stores; it's with people.

Ochre already commented on the second bolded sentence. Gandhi and Buddha would have nothing to do with us. Same goes for the Church.

[Faust]

No doubt that consumerism happens on all levels. The scales are different though - designer clothes is 4% of the apparel market.

I think that a large part of what goes into classifieds is the result of internet mishaps. People buy things without trying them on, and they don't fit well - big surprise.

[zamb]

Cross-posted from the Silent by Damir Doma thread. I didn't want to continue this discussion in that thread, and this one seemed like the best place.



I have a feeling (maybe more of a hope) that those people do not represent the typical chain store customer. It's like people here who buy an expensive garment, wear it twice, then sell it in the Classifieds. Practically, the only difference is that they're not throwing the clothes out. Theoretically, there's no difference at all. Or, on another token, "fashionistas" who have to have the latest Balmain for no other reason than it being trendy. The same pattern can be found in almost any industry at any level. The problem is not with chain stores; it's with people.

Ochre already commented on the second bolded sentence. Gandhi and Buddha would have nothing to do with us. Same goes for the Church.

well the chain stores should be charged with "aiding and abetting"

[endorphinz]

endorphinz, "those who just like to create" and art are two different things. art, at least the way i see it, exists in a social context. it has to have a social meaning or it fails as art. you can create fantastic copies of mona lisa, but who cares?

i don't understand the point you're trying to make. what if da Vinci decided to hang the mona lisa is his bedroom? would it not still be art?

[cjbreed]

....Ochre already commented on the second bolded sentence. Gandhi and Buddha would have nothing to do with us. Same goes for the Church.

i dunno. gandhi was pretty serious about weaving and looms and fabrics and what not.



btw....pricing is crazy. no, really. its crazy.

[Faust]

i don't understand the point you're trying to make. what if da Vinci decided to hang the mona lisa is his bedroom? would it not still be art?

i suppose in a sense it could still be art. it just would not have any cultural/social meaning, so what good would it be? i thought art had a purpose beyond hanging on a wall, correct me if i'm wrong.

[endorphinz]

^there is no right or wrong when discussing subjective subjects; and, having said that, even if there were, i would be the last person in the world to to definitively answer this specific question.

the words "what good it would be" kinda shock me. well, if davinci painted it cuz he couldn't get "mona" out of his head,it would give him great pleasure (or pain) every time he went to bed. the painting hanging in a bedroom would have the same strokes and colors than it would if it hung in the louvre.

hey man, i'm art ignorant...totally. i'm just a guy that grew up in the bronx that somehow fell in love with clothes.

i understand the point you are trying to make but i respectfully disagree. art is art to whomever creates it and chooses to appreciate and respect it as such. IMO the quality and social impact does not define whether or not someting qualifies as art.

just look at popular music, movies and fashion. i'm sure, and i'm a betting man that you would not consider the works that have recently made the most social impact, works of art.

and, getting back to the OT.,..........c'mon......we all know that pricing is crazy

[Mail-Moth]

Faust, if your point is to say that art only begins to exist when a creation meets a public and then gains appreciation (in the widest sense of the term), I can see what you mean. But how do you call what does exist before this moment ? Do you totally separate the creative process from what you call art ?

[zamb]

^there is no right or wrong when discussing subjective subjects;

i understand the point you are trying to make but i respectfully disagree. art is art to whomever creates it and chooses to appreciate and respect it as such. IMO the quality and social impact does not define whether or not someting qualifies as art.

In this case then, anything can be art..........which means that all things are art.........or nothing at all is.
Also how then do you make a distinction between the fashion designer and the artist if both create and perceive their works in the same way?

interesting question: Lets say someone like Tracy Emin or Damien Hirst decided to create a clothing line...............would that essentially be Art?.................

[whitney]

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

i know and things are easily muddled these days
a designer can be "fashionable" or viewed more artistic if they put trimmings on their work..like instead of just a shirt with basic construction, they will put some ruffles..

i guess artists are those who create vision first, and then try to work in the mechanics into the piece--while designers start out with the mechanics in place and then put the glitter on..