The pricing is crazy/justified thread

[zamb]

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"....

Designers that are Artists.

Hussien Chalayan
Martin Margiela
Carol Christian Poell
Madame Gres
Alexander Mcqueen
Cristobal Balenciaga
Elsa Schiaparelli

'The Skeleton Dress' -, Elsa Schiaparelli,


I will add more another time............Maybe we should have a "fashion as Art" thread..............we can post interesting works of art or artistic expression created by "designers"

[eat me]

Maybe we should have a "fashion as Art" thread..............we can post interesting works of art or artistic expression created by "designers"

[BeauIXI]

I think that would be a good idea too, this is too much of a tangent.

Zamb, I'm definitely not saying that designers aren't artists, I'm saying that splitting a line between those who design for design's sake and who design for art's sake is a strange thing. Of course we'll still have "designers" who are completely, entirely about making a profit, but maybe it would be better to say that all these individuals are designers, some are true artists, some are artistic, and some are business-oriented, delivering only what their public desires.

I'm not trying to say anything about my opinion in this case, only my distaste for the system contrived earlier on, between artists and people who make clothing. I just don't think it works.

[Faust]

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 ?

I don't totally separate it, of course. The two are tied together by nature - art involves the making of things. I just think that art needs an audience. Otherwise, what good is it? What is its purpose?

[interest1]

.

Galliano the artist, Galliano the designer, Da Vinci, Gandhi & Buddha in particular, the Church in general, nocturnal artisan leathersmiths who dine on pork & beans, commercial designers living high on the hog, those who are "just sayin" and those who don't know what they're saying, designers who care & artists who don't, a visually arresting clown, SOMEBODY (though not the majority), those pesky capitalist bastards and the fashionistas who love them. Oh and Kafka, too.

If this spontaneous tea party didn't invite arguably the most eclectic army of lovers to the table for a drink..
This thread, one learns, is best appreciated as a spectator.. lulz..

[Sombre]

I don't totally separate it, of course. The two are tied together by nature - art involves the making of things. I just think that art needs an audience. Otherwise, what good is it? What is its purpose?

Auto-satisfaction and/or self-delusion .

And Interest1, absolutely hilarious.

[Faust]

/\ BTW, I love how we successfully derailed your attempt to keep on topic.

[Sombre]

Hmm. Is there a word for willfully sabotaging your own endeavours?

EDIT: \/ Interest1, It's actually a serious question. The best I could come up with was "masochism".

[interest1]

no, why don't you tell me before I decide to google it LOL..

[interest1]

huh? the number of shoes Fidel Castro owns has suddenly been upgraded to a serious question? you lost me..

[Faust]

/\ waiting for your PM, darling.

[Sombre]

huh? the number of shoes Fidel Castro owns has suddenly been upgraded to a serious question? you lost me..

LOL. You meant that question. I thought you were talking about the word for sabotaging one's own endeavours.

No, the Fidel Castro comment was just a joke. Although if goes through shoes like he's gone through women, I expect the number to be four digits.

[BeauIXI]

I don't totally separate it, of course. The two are tied together by nature - art involves the making of things. I just think that art needs an audience. Otherwise, what good is it? What is its purpose?

Doesn't art always have an "audience", even if unreleased, or immediately destroyed, the artist, looking over his work, is a form of audience, temporally separated from him/herself, the artist.

I know what you mean, that art ought to have a social audience, but what about the cultural amalgam which absorbs silent but then imminent art? Ugh, this is getting absurd.

Posthumous (Barthes or Kafka reference, you decide) edit..

Had you found a way to incorporate a Cuban heel into that, would've been golden, lulz.. paging Merz..

[interest1]

Had you found a way to incorporate a Cuban heel into that, would've been golden, lulz.. paging Merz.

[Avantster]

A few points here on a number of topics that came up in this thread and seem to continually emerge in this forum every now and then.

- Dismissing something as completely subjective only limits the possibility of further discussion and learning. The beauty of art is that someone completely new to it can have something fresh and valuable to say, but this does not necessarily invalidate current knowledge of art and everything that came before it. Understanding this history and current arguments in a particular field are often critical when forming qualitative opinions. This is of particular note to fashion, which is yet to have the benefit of a large academic/theoretical body of work.

- The artist is attuned to experience, and can express this dynamic quality through an imaginative vision (not necessarily visual) to other people. The artist lives in society and understands the pre-existing attitudes and values of others both as humans and collective society, and this is what makes their vision resonate powerfully as a experience for others.

- Art(ists) and design(ers) are not mutually exclusive.

- Art evolves dynamically over time. The artist of today turns a critical eye to yesterdays definition of art, challenging and redefining it. This new way of seeing eventually hardens and becomes the established truth. It's a continual cycle where established notions are continually examined and turned on their head. As a result 'modern art' is often mystifying to newcomers. It is an acquired taste which has it's own rewards, one where where the journey is as just as important as the end result.