In her article Fashion as Art; is Fashion Art?, Sandra Miller (2007) asks if fashion can be regarded as a form of art.
In its February 1982 issue, Artform magazine featured on its cover an Issey Miyake outfit, which could have doubled as an aggressive/erotic sculpture or painting. It was the first time clothing had been featured on the cover of an art magazine (The Issey Miyake Foundation, 2009). This marked the beginning of all parties attempting to “bridge the gap perceived to exist between the worlds of art and fashion, culminating in the 1996 extravaganza that was the Florence Biennale” (Miller, 2007). Entitled Time and Fashion, the exhibition was the first biennial event to explore fashion in depth (Spindler, 1996).
The Biennale held seven exhibitions with the only purpose of exploring the relationship between the visual arts: design, architecture, film, photography, music, costume and communication. The catalyst of this exhibition was the belief that fashion, in its complexity and innovative worth, was the most important expression of mass culture (Catalogue of the Biennale di Firenze, 1996). Miuccia Prada collaborated with art collector Damien Hirst in one of seven pavilions; Helmut Lang with neo-conceptual artist Jenny Holzer in another; Gianni Versace with pop-artist Roy Lichtenstein in a third. Works of Ms. Prada, Jil Sander, Rei Kawakubo, Mr. Lang, Mr. Versace and Karl Lagerfeld had been criticised for being unattractive, but were exhibited nonetheless to appropriately challenge what is considered beautiful (Spindler, 1996).
Since then, the question of fashion as art has been constantly discussed in matter of art history and philosophy. George Dickie provided a deemed logical definition of art by proposing that “a work of art is an object of which someone has said I christen this object a work of art” (Dickie, 1977;436). If this theory is accepted, then conferring the status of art on fashion should be acceptable when looking at Elsa Schiaparelli’s work for example (Miller, 2007), especially her collaboration with surrealist painter Salvador Dali. This work will be discussed further in the section on Cubism.
On the other hand, Noël Carroll seems to disagree. He believes that “sometimes the mere fact that an artefact can be used to serve a historically acknowledged function suffices to call an object art, irrespective of the original creator’s intention” (Carroll, 1999). Art has to provide historical narrative. The reason for this theory is explained clearly: all famous theories of art have been replaced by the appearance of new ones, and experimental innovation should not be feared but embraced to ensure the never-ending evolution of art (Carroll, 1999).
The study of the history of clothing has not yet acquired the status of fine arts history. Nevertheless, the history of fashion is directly linked and dependent on the visual arts, if only because of its perishable nature. Clothing has always offered very important clues to art historians regarding issues of class, gender and social status and has been used as conveyors of meaning in many religious studies. If we were to consider the aesthetics of dress and how they have influenced economic, political and technological history, and even of social customs, we would see that they were very closely aligned. These matters can affect invention and sartorial craftsmanship, and help fashion expand its horizons (Miller, 2007).
An association with frivolity offers yet another opinion as it links fashion to social customs rather than aesthetics. Kant (1892) defines this theory as an imitation of the other, especially holding a higher status than one’s own, like a child would his parents. The frivolous nature of imitation provides the justification for predicated vanity and recklessness of fashion (Miller, 2007): “thus fashion belongs under the heading of vanity for its intent is no inner value; and also under the heading of folly, for it is folly to be compelled by mere example into following slavishly the conduct shown by many in society” (Kant, 1892). An opposite view given by Edmund Burke, argues that our desire to imitate is especially important in a society as it shapes manners, opinions and lives (Burke, 1990). “It is a species of mutual compliance which all men yield to each other without constraints to themselves, and which is extremely flattering to them” (Burke, 1990). This is a proven theory in fashion diffusion and is called the trickle-down theory, a hierarchal process where individuals with high status establish trends, only to be imitated by lower-status individuals producing cheaper versions of the style offered. This circle keeps high-status individuals motivated to differentiate themselves from the masses, and this, in effect, is what fuels innovation and style changes.
Ultimately, if fashion is not considered art, then it is a subject of aesthetics. In his book Art, the critics and you, Curt John Ducasse (1944) argues that man is a reflective being, but most of all a self-centred one (Miller, 2007), and goes on to place appearances at the centre of human happiness and states that clothing is “an ornamental mask for the human form, and whatever manages to serve as such constitutes clothing” (Ducasse, 1929). Thus beauty, mystery, interest, grandeur, glamour are means of fascination and therefore significant the flourishing of humankind (Miller, 2007).