2012-08-24, 05:52 PM
SaptaZapta Wrote:And there you have it. That is why people don't view fashion as art.
Art should not be work, or not that kind of work.
The artist works, the public consumes. We view, we listen, we like or dislike, but we don't have to work on it. We are not tested on it.
When the "art" of fashion is to come up with 8 or 10 different new trends each year and then make the public work to make them fit, that's not art. That's a capricious game of "Simon says".
You're right - aspects of fashion are not art. They are work.
But does that mean ALL of fashion is not art? Is there not room for both - the work involved in creating the art, the work involved in styling it? That being said, if you are to assume this it means the only "true" art of fashion is that which we simply enjoy viewing, but not wearing, because the very act of wearing the art involves work on the part of the consumer, which therefore makes it non-art, at least according to your logic.
Which is funny, though, because the act of styling an outfit is creating a new piece of art from other pieces, therefore making your work as a consumer actually the work of an artist. Isn't that also, say, the same as consuming literature? The novel, the poem - they're pieces of art you need to work to enjoy by reading and, in some cases, analyzing for deeper understand. And viewing all forms of art from this perspective, isn't each individual form that much more enjoyable and appreciated after doing the work to become well-versed in their creation to more deeply understand them?
These are all just thoughts within this discussion, and I'm curious what everyone has to say.

