Is fashion art? [Part 2]


#NEWSERIE – Jose Romussi | cargo collective

We can look at fashion in two ways:

a) look at their functional aspect that enables clothing to keep us warm, giving us erotic appeal, adorning us


b) regard them as beautiful objects of aesthetic contemplation by “disregarding the concept under which they fall and therefore ignoring their functional dimension. They could be (as indeed they are) objects of admiration in a museum (Miller, 2007).

It is a quote like Guillaume Apollinaire’s (1927) in Le poète assassiné that could potentially help us understand what sentiments fashion could invoke within a person: “Fashion is becoming practical and no longer looks down on anything. It ennobles everything. It does for materials what the Romantics did for words (Apollinaire, 1999). It is this power of fascination, historical value and freedom of identity that makes fashion a strong subject of interest, regardless of whether one agrees to its status as art or not.


Issey Miyake outfit on the cover of Artforum magazine, Feb 1982

The Artforum editor that put the Issey Mikaye dress on the February 1982 cover, Ingrid Sischy, sparked controversy by associating dress with art, but she even admits she doesn’t necessarily think fashion is art, but still poses the question as to why the definition for artistic creativity is so narrow as to be characterised purely as a painting in a frame (Spindler, 1996). She even described fashion designers from the likes of Muccia Prada, Rei Kawakubo and Karl Lagerfeld as the “equivalent breakthrough visually, as there was when artists broke through the idea of the picturesque’’ and carries on the comparison by saying: “The most creative and the most attuned designers are revolutionising what a palette means, what a line means, a shape. For fashion, it’s the equivalent creativity of Cubism” (Spindler, 1996).

For Sischy, the difference between art and fashion lies in the system in which fashion is judged. She points out the lack of system in which people could step back and really look at a piece of clothing or at a look and truly think about it: what it means, what it represents, what it might convey, as opposed to keeping a level of debate and interest to a low and superficial level (Spindler, 1996).

Fashion adheres to quite a few of the philosophies mentioned in a previous extract, in that is not always aesthetically pleasing, more often than not is based on a mood and an inspiration which gives it meaning and it portrays the personality of the designer or the house that design it. It can make us feel tremendous joy, pain, even shock, can be anchored in our minds forever and it can take us back to times we never experienced or lived in. Unfortunately, this might not be enough. There is no definitive answer as to whether fashion is art. This might have been possible if the fashion system was different if designers had more time to work on their creations, and if a real platform was offered to viewers to judge the art. Fashion can also still be linked to status and frivolity as it is not used as a marketing tool by celebrities and bloggers to manifest their status to the world.

This way of looking at fashion as a sign of status could be undermining its true meaning. Evidently, some of fashion’s best moments happened off the runway. As Ms Sischy stated so adequately:’’At the opening of the Andy Warhol Museum in May 1994, the most fabulous moment was when these dames emerged in their Halston-designed dresses when Andy had done the fabric’’ (Spindler, 1996).

Rob Halston x Andy Warhol.jpg

Andy Warhol x Rob Halston collaboration (Fall 1974) 
Halston and Warhol: Silver & Suede exhibition poster at The Andy Warhol Museum 

Indeed, fashion is not only about what happens in big fashion houses. It is as much about history as it is about contemporary happenings. Indeed, innovation was always at the forefront of the fashion world, as well as a constant shift in clothing styles. Most of these changes were inspired by art movements or social shifts in societies. This can even date back to the time of French king Louis XV’s time when his mistress Madame Pompadour established Rococo fashion, described as a happy, fresh style in pastel colours, and subsequently, light stripe and floral patterns became popular. We could even look at Marie Antoinette who became the leader of French fashion, as did her dressmaker Rose Bertin. She basked in extravagance and it became her trademark, which ended up majorly fanning the flames of the French Revolution.

In the next section, we will look at fashion in the 20th Century, how it cultivated ideas, what art movements were the catalysts of modern fashion, and take a look at what could be described as the early show-pieces.


Cultural appropriation is a joke


Turbans at Gucci AW18 cause “cultural appropriation” uproar.

Every single year, every single season, designers use inspirations from an array of cultural references. And every single year, every single season, an article about “cultural appropriation” pops up to make us feel bad about appreciating the beauty of cultures we do not adhere to.

To me, this is becoming a matter of societal divide. When people cannot speak their mind or use their brains because of social “convention”, this attacks our freedom of speech and individual thought. This is not a good way to go to achieve any kind of prosperity in the future. What I am about to write only attempts to appeal to your humanity. Do you really want to connect with your peers? Then learn about them.

▽ Nobody is denigrating your culture

Some people are offended by the lack of knowledge of their peers when it comes to different cultures. I am Lebanese and in the 10 years I have been living in Europe, believe me, I have heard some gems over the years, but I was never truly offended by people’s comments. I found myself laughing at their ignorance, and that was it.

I tried to make a point that my country is beautiful, and yes we do have milk, and no we don’t go to work on camels, and no I did not spend my life in a tent in the desert. Really that was it. I also realised people are genuinely interested in what I had to say.

So before getting offended, take a minute to remember that most educational systems like the ones in the UK and the US are actually not great, and that geography and history and general knowledge are not really offered to a student, and that not knowing doesn’t necessarily mean people are racist or trying to offend you. Some people just don’t know.

▽ Multiculturalism is a massive part of globalism

Today, the biggest social development facing fashion and art is globalism. The world is interconnected and familiarity with different cultures and facility with diversity are essential. There is an understanding that there is work to be done when it comes to reconciling the European intellectual origins and its colonialist legacy. However, in an increasingly multicultural, internationally-geared world, the spread and influence of culture should be celebrated, not made shameful. In these difficult times, should we not be focusing on coming together, rather than trying to be divisive?

Building walls around cultures seems almost dangerous. Celebrating cultural diversity should be the main goal as opposed to putting people in boxes. This is the 21st century and sorry to burst your bubbles, but ethic ‘purity’ is not nonsense.

▽ Inspiration should not be confined to a box

Let’s be honest here; inspiration comes from everywhere and everything – as it should! If you know how to research for a fashion collection, then you know the designer and their team have to go above and beyond to find inspiration and a real design focus. Inspiration can be anything, anywhere, anyone. Imagine being confined to the limits of what you are and what you know. So let’s say, I am Lebanese, in my 20s, with curly hair, middle class and I like, for argument’s sake, car tyres. If all my collections focused on that, I would be creating a whole lot of care tyre garments paraded on Lebanese models, and if I dared to reference lower class ways of life, I would be destroyed in the media.

Limits are dangerous. They can stall the growth and knowledge of a generation. It can stunt the beauty, refinement and wonder of art. What is the point of looking at something that you know? What will be left there to learn?

Refinery 29 posed the question “How can you be genuinely inspired by something without fully engaging with the ideals behind it? And at what point does it become fetishization instead of appreciation?” I say yes. A belief, a religion, a culture does not have to be embraced for it to be respected. If you want to discuss the fact that something can become fetishised, then I don’t care who uses it, one would have to look at why hijabs are used on the runway of a Muslim designer, or why is using the Christian cross ok for fashion purposes, but not a bindi? Was the use of the dragon in the Gucci show culturally appropriate the Khalesi culture. How far does this go? If you want to ban the use of culture in fashion, then ban it all, because I, for one, would not want my background and beliefs checked before I present a collection or an art piece. What has become of my freedom of expression?


Take a second to review what offends you. Is it really the turbans used at Gucci? Are dreadlocks on white models really offensive? Is a bindi really irresponsible? I’m starting to believe that people who agree with all this exaggeration are the only ones who are truly intolerant. As a Lebanese woman, I can honestly say that a collection inspired by Lebanese heritage would only do great things, and spread awareness about the lifestyle, the history and the culture. And in times when knowledge is at its lowest point, I can assure it will do more good than harm.

Let’s try to appreciate and celebrate different cultures. All we really have is each other. Embrace each other and stop making everyone feel bad for no serious reason. Have a conversation and actually listen. Seriously, who remembers the turbans in the Gucci show? I can only remember the dragon and severed heads. I mean, really I don’t think enough people care about this. I don’t care about it. I care about you impeding on my life, telling me what to think. Seriously, get over yourselves.

Is fashion art? [Part 1]

The theories

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).


Prada x Hirst

Muccia Prada x Damien Hirst Entomology bag

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). 


Issey Miyake Artforum

Issey Miyake outfit on the cover of Artforum magazine, February 1982



Screen Shot 2018-02-12 at 17.48.24


Screen Shot 2018-02-12 at 17.48.31


Screen Shot 2018-02-12 at 17.48.46Screen Shot 2018-02-12 at 17.48.55


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).


Versace x Lichtenstein

A collaboration between Gianni Versace and Roy Lichtenstein, showing an overlapping of artistic disciplines.


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.


Screen Shot 2018-02-12 at 17.49.13


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).