Visual Arts and Film Studies - Essay Example

Visual Arts and Film Studies The premise of this paper is based upon a culturally significant event that occurred thirty-two years ago in February of 1982 when the world renowned art magazine, Artforum, made a decision that was somewhat audacious and much unheard of in art circles at the time. Rather than featuring the painting of a talented artist or the creation of a skilled sculptor, the cover of the magazine presented a reproduced outfit by Japanese fashion designer Issey Miyake. From the point of view of Artforum’s editor, the magazine justified its selection of featuring the piece by attributing fashion as a significant constituent of the wider visual culture. While, Artforum’s notable step was praised by many it also triggered a debate in which some chose to side with the magazine’s stance that fashion is art and others chose to abide by conventional definitions of art that present the phenomenon in limiting and confining forms. Given the scenario where fashion’s acceptance into the larger circle of what can be deemed as art is quite contentious, this paper critically analyzes the notion by addressing the factors that surround the debate to conclude whether fashion is indeed art or a phenomenon that is distinguishably separate from this form of expression. According to Miller (2007), the classification of fashion as an art form is dependent upon the question that explores the range of phenomenon that can also be attributed as art to allow the establishment of an obvious link between art and the identified expressions of the same. With regard to the conundrum as to whether fashion can be deemed as an art form it can be observed that the answer to this query is backed by a range of arguments that support fashion’s inclusion in the coveted realm of art. As stated by Welters and Lillethun (2011, p. 365) the advocates of the fashion as art movement claim that “…fashion is indeed art because it is a visual medium whose creators respond to the same stimuli as painters and sculptors”. Certainly, this statement is depictive of a profound understanding of the true meaning and intention of art and what it intends to evoke and inspire within the audience however, the rationale of this statement is not concrete because it only rests on subjectivity because the categorization of the aforementioned ‘stimuli’ is unclear. Yet the essence of Welters and Lillethun’s (2011) declaration sheds light on the possible stimuli that have the ability to appeal to the senses of the viewer and aid in the establishment of emotions, feelings and responses. On the other hand, Miller’s (2007) analysis of recent contributions to fashion theory advocates fashion’s place in the sphere of art forms because like art, clothes and dress have the ability to aid the development of historical exploration and research on a particular era and its people. For Miller (2007), by assessing the art and fashion of a community, group or society the creation of a vivid picture of that society becomes possible and this observation essentially links and ties art and fashion together. Accordingly, the creation of visual culture is dependent upon the combination of a range of elements that comprise of an individual’s everyday experiences this notion postulates that the isolation of fashion as a medium that exists in every society is not possible thereby, making it a constituent of visual culture having stated that the depth of this argument should be assessed further. In the scholarly work titled Is Fashion Art? Kim (1998) raises the crucial significance of the aesthetic component of art and claims that this aspect has traditionally been ignored in the discipline of fashion theory and research. Despite of limited representation in fashion literature it can be stated that the aesthetics of an idea and design that are interlaced with perfect execution are the foundations of a fashion creation thus, the lack of focus in terms of aesthetics seems unneeded in most fashion research. However, Miller (2007) refutes this claim by highlighting the functional dimension of fashion and the issues that are associated with examining the artistic merits of a design which could prevent fashion from being attributed as an art form. While, Miller’s (2007) argument redefines the dimensions of fashion and distinguishes it from the elements of other art forms the discussion can be linked back to the real world examples in which society has celebrated fashion as an art form by accepting the features of the medium. In this regard, the pioneering Yves Saint Laurent fashion exhibition that was held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City in early 1980s can be praised for bridging the gap between art and fashion circles (Kim, 1998). Another example that depicts the execution of an extensive effort to recognize the thriving place of fashion as an art form is represented by the fact that the first Giorgio Armani exhibition was held at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City. Moreover, the development of fashion as an art form is heavily influenced by the conception of culture as a wider system rather than being limited to the visual appeal of what is seen in the environment. For example in establishing the link between fashion and the forces within society, Barnard (2007) cites the observation of Derrida who believes that fashion is in fact a social being and its progress is therefore dependent upon the manner in which the nature of images and meanings is viewed within society. Subsequently, Barnard (2007) identifies the link between fashion and society’s discourse in terms of language and text on the basis of which it is possible to think of fashion as a comprehensive system of textile, aesthetic sense and imagination. The ultimate significance of highlighting the significance of language in fashion is how this notion has always acted as the critical force that has guided the relationship between art magazines and fashion forms. Indeed, the discussion on whether fashion is an art form cannot be completed unless the displays of the same in the art world are not assessed in their entirety. With regard to this understanding Kim (1998) states that the association between fashion and art cannot be limited to the number of fashion exhibitions that have been conducted in art museums such that the association between the two respective phenomenon is much more complex and profound in which art has appreciated the depth of fashion as a form of expression. Kim (1998) claims that the prime examples of this comprehension are seen in the in-depth fashion writings that have been extensively featured in art publications from the period between 1980 and 1995. Even though, such literary pieces on fashion may appear to be critical reflections upon the state of the medium, Kim (1998) asserts that their true significance and contribution to the medium of art transcends ordinary approaches to the expression of creativity. In the light of this understanding it can be noted that the writing pieces on fashion that have been published in art magazines during the period aim to examine the author’s principal beliefs on the notions of fashion thereby, assisting the establishment of a theory which allows analysts and audiences to critique the progress of fashion through the domain of aesthetic inquiry (Kim, 1998). Kim’s (1998) critical examination of fashion literature that has been featured in art publications leads to the construction of an outcome which states that: “…postmodern concepts of fashion tend toward an interdisciplinary approach so as to embrace diverse aesthetic forms and practices that enrich human experience in the same way as postmodern art” (Kim, 1998, p. 51). The crux of the aforementioned understanding enlightens the reader regarding the evolving objectives of fashion that are analogous to the goals that art intends to achieve because postmodern creations of both fashion and art have allowed an expansion of the mediums by accommodating a variety of tastes, feelings and emotions that are triggered once viewers respond to similar stimuli. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin published in 1967 provides an insight into the historical views on whether fashion is worthy enough to be classified as art and also puts forward the opinion of Norman Norell (1967), one of the most glorified American fashion designers of the time on the matter. Norell’s (1967) opinion on the subject appears to be rather complex, for one the designer establishes that the best of what fashion has to offer can be deemed as art however, the historical relevance of this notion is ambiguous. This statement essentially suggests that the intricacy of fashion is best understood by a selected group of individuals and it is only their creations that can be classified in the same league as art. Therefore, according to Norell (1967) the names of Vionnet, Chanel, Balenciaga and Gres are the ones that deserve to be classified under the label of ‘fashion artists’. Consequently, the legendary fashion designer also enlightens the reader about the details and elements of fashion that can qualify as art, in this case Norell’s (1967) conception of the art of fashion is rather unique and expected – detail and intricacy is not what qualifies as the art of fashion, according to the designer. The essence of this notion is that if the art of fashion is rooted in complexity and intricacy that takes weeks to finish, then it is possible for almost anyone to spend an extensive amount of time and create an abstract fashion piece. However, the real art of fashion lies in creating something that is simple and straightforward yet magnificent (Norell, 1967). Through the differing opinions of groups that are divided on the question as to whether fashion qualifies as art and as a part of the wider visual culture, it is intriguing to observe how individual perceptions of the mode of expression through dress has emerged in recent years as compared to fifty years ago. Welters and Lillethun (2011) postulate that opponents of fashion of as an art form highlight the commercialized purposes of the phenomenon and assert that commercialization is a key element that can disqualify fashion from entering the realm of art. On the other hand for modern sculptor Louise Nevelson (1967), fashion cannot qualify as art because rather than being a form of expression for the individual whose donning an outfit the piece of clothing ultimately reflects what the clothes’ creator, the designer deems and does not deem as fashion. Yet again it is easy to observe how varying opinions have shaped fashion’s recognition as an art form, from the point of Irene Sharaff (1967) who is known to be one of the most celebrated and influential movie costume designers of her era, the creative component of fashion is and always has been indispensible to the creation of a piece. Therefore, to eliminate fashion from the list of art forms is not fair if imagination, creativity and ideation are also believed to lie at the core of art. More importantly, Sharaff (1967) like Miller (2007) sheds light on the matter of how art like fashion has the ability to depict times and epochs that have passed thereby, acting as a critical point of historical research. In her conception of fashion as art, Sharaff (1967, p. 135) adds that “as much as art, fashion is a manifestation of the times – of its psychological, social, political, visual existence”. Thus, the ultimate goals and objectives of fashion and art are one and the same for they are triggered by similar stimuli, experiences and emotions – given the diversity and broad spectrum of art it is reasonable to conclude that like painting or sculpture, fashion is indeed a form of art and therefore, an element of the larger system of visual culture. References Barnard, M. (Ed.). (2007). Fashion theory: a reader. Routledge. Kim, S. B. (1998). Is fashion art?. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture, 2(1), 51-71. Miller, S. (2007). Fashion as Art; is Fashion Art?. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture, 11(1). Norell, N., Nevelson, L., Sharaff, I., Nikolais, A., Courreges, A., & Tucker, P. (1967). Is Fashion an Art?. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 129-140. Welters, L., & Lillethun, A. (Eds.). (2011). The fashion reader. Berg. Read More