Okay, I've been thinking about this a lot the past few days (when I haven't been thinking about muffins), and I need to understand what defines 'art' and 'fashion'. What makes something art, and what makes something fashion?
I think what I am tired of hearing is the whole "anything can be art" or "anything can be fashion" argument. Perhaps I just like to live in a world of categorization, where everything is clearly defined and organized. To me there should be boundaries to these two words; something that separates them from being included in the "anything can be..." statements.
Art: The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
The key part is the last part- "more than ordinary significance." But what constitutes significance? Moreover, what constitutes ordinary significance? Art has, and always will be, subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure, if you will. But what makes a piece by Monet so extraordinary? Is it the public mass perception that Monet indeed made beautiful art? What about the one person who thinks Monet did terrible work. Does that mean Monet didn't create art, according to the definition? Well who is right, the man who didn't think Monet made Art, or the thousands who agree that he did? Are both right? It is this subjectiveness that bothers me, as I want the true answer.
Fashion: a prevailing custom or style of dress, etiquette, socializing, etc.
Let's revisit my toothpick argument. It is not proper etiquette to chew a toothpick after clearning your teeth, or walk around with one in your mouth afterwards. It is not a style of dress because you don't physically wear it. It is not a prevailing custom, in my opinion, because a majority of people don't walk around with toothpicks in their mouths. You could argue that a custom doesn't have to have a majority, but then is it really prevailing? For example, what's custom to one family might not be custom to the rest of the world. Does that mean the one family's custom is not fashion? In my opinion it means just that. But again, like art, fashion is a subjective term. People who use the "anything can be..." see that one family's custom as fashion.
I keep searching for clearly defined answers to my questions when I know they're impossible to find. I just want to know what is and what isn't in this world. I hate grey areas, and my own toothpick post has brought me into a grey area. Once again, I boo toothpicks.
~Mikey D
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
More than subjective, art is relative. If someone creates anything of "more than ordinary signifcance" to himself, then he has created art by the definition.
If one person sees art in something, then it is art, even if the rest of the world cannot see it, or does not agree on its significance.
As far as fashion goes, the key word is indeed "prevailing" What about things that are clearly within the realm of fashion, but are not prevailing?
Let me use neckties as an example. Say that I wore a necktie with Guster written all over it. This is clearly not "prevailing" in the world of neckties.
Is the Guster necktie fashion?
If not, what is it?
If 51% of the tie-wearing community started wearing Guster ties, would they become fashion?
And would the minority ties now worn by 49% of the community that were previously described as "fashion" lose that distiction?
I take issue with the provided definition of fashion. It uses fashion in a very general sense.
But when I use the word, I usually mean it in a very specific way, at the individual level. In the sense of "that pink, polka-dot shirt is really making a fashion statement" rather than "pink, polka-dot shirts are in fashion"
To people who take fashion very seriously, fashion is an art form. And although I don't care at all about fashion, I usually use "fashion" in that sense. So to me, if even one person uses something as fashion, then it is fashion.
This post was an exact question/response to everything you just wrote me. You are that person who says "Anything can be..."
And while I understand that argument, I disagree. You think a person is portraying fashion by wearing whatever they want (see my family customs argument). But if one individual believes 1+1=3 while the rest of the world says 2, is that individual still right? If one person says something is fashion, but the rest of the world says its not, why isn't the world right?
Think about the difference between what is 'fashion' and what is 'fashionable'. This applies to your Guster necktie argument. The fashion is the necktie. What is fashionable is the Guster, or the design.
The public perceives neckties as fashion. The public also perceives a Guster necktie as not fashionable. There lies the problem with your argument, because I agree with you 100% that the necktie is still fashion. What a person wears as their personal fashion is fine, as long as it's accepted as fashion. Whether its fashionable is irrelevant.
A person could wear an old white t-shirt and a pair of sweatpants for the rest of his life, and it's still fashion. Why? Because people have accepted t-shirts and sweatpants as fashion. Low-end fashion, and not too fashionable, but fashion nonetheless.
Toothpicks have no relevancy in the fashion world. Nobody considers a toothpick fashion, other than the one incorrect individual. The public doesn't perceive it as fashion, so regardless of whether a person thinks they're creating their own personal fashion or whether they are fashionable, they are not.
***
I wrote this post because I wanted to create a universal definition of fashion and art. There are two very differing points of views (yours and mine), and while we both have a preference about which is correct, I feel a little bit of truth lies in each. The more I think about it, the less I think it's possible. Subjective, or relative, terms seem unable to fit the molding of one be-all definition.
my whole confusion with this argument is that, i don't view fashion in the form of just a t-shirt, a pair of jeans and some shoes.
fashion to me is a mixture of fabrics, colors,cuts, lines and textures that create vastly different sillouhettes and appearances through both slight and major alterations.
fashion isn't just about the clothes. Its the combination of clothes that makes it fashion.
with that being said, wood is only fashion when it is being used for the heel of a shoe, and maybe the handle of a purse. NOT as a oral accessory.
I agree with your last paragraph. I knew there was a reason I loved you =). Just kidding, just kidding...
As far as your first paragraph goes, give me your definition of fashion. If I (or anybody else) can't disprove/argue it, then I will accept it as the universal definition of fashion.
Fashion is the combination, or balance if you will of color, texture, and lines.
Example: a white t-shirt is not fashion. However, if you take a white t-shirt,with maybe a a plunging neckline, (but not too low, i mean its not a whore) add a pair of high-waisted, wide leg, black pinstripe trousers, a wide green/teal belt, a purple velvet blazer, and of course a nice set of heels (maybe snakeskin, i dig that now, i'm thinking a grayish color) with maybe some other accessories, then you have fashion.
the balance comes from the fact that the highwasted pants will create a cinched waist, however the wideness of the leg will balance the cinched waist. The belt creates definition between the pants and the shirt, while the blazer just add a different texture and depth to the outfit. And the heels elongate the legs and make the wide leg tousers flattering.
If that's your definition of fashion, then I'm curious to see your definition of art..
As for the rest....
Oh...My...God...I find it impossible to comment on.
haha.. silly boy, trying to understand fashion. :)
Post a Comment